general question about conviction

[gem]

looking for info on a perverse verdict please.anyone had dealings with this,
RF any info ...

[LS]

The only dealing I had with PV was that the barrister present at the conviction said it was so. However, when my normal barrister returned for the sentencing she said it was not an appeal ground and to put it out of my mind.

I still fail to understand how, when the jury blatantly disregarded all the holes in the prosecution case, I can't appeal against it. I'm consoling myself with the hope I ever meet Dominic Roe or Vanessa Lane in a dark alley I'll issue my own verdict.

But looking on the web re PV it seems it is mostly an American thing.

Of course, over here the juries never lie and never ignore evidence.....

[gem]

oh ok
just had a conversation with new solicitor for appeal.he thinks we should go for this
he going to contact a new barrister and run it by him. i was under the impression once found guilty their was no way you could overrule the jurys verdict.
he has read through the transcripts several times and he says he cant believe the jury have blatantly ignored the inconsistencies of the evidence.nor sure whether to get my hopes up

[LS]

As far as I'm aware there are only two grounds of appealing against the verdict:

1. Argument on the trial's process (Judge's directions etc)
or
2. Fresh evidence. That is, evidence which was not available to be used at the time of trial. Not evidence which was there, but not used.

[lawlessone2009]

Light at the end of the tunnel!

I would grasp everything and anything. Juries are only human at the end of the day and the 'image' in their mind could be thwarted by many different means. Members of the jury come from many walks of life, it could be a case that the ones sitting on the case were strong believers in the state and didn't want to believe anything to the contrary so the inconsistencies were simply ignored.

If the original legal team made sure that the facts were put before them but they were ignored then it could be a possibility that something has went wrong.

It's right to ask and RF is the answer bearer. I'm merely sharing my opinion.

[gem]

thanks for your replies
we do have unused evidence also that was not used at the trial.
in fact hardly any was used.
just unsure on this pv myself

[Saffron]

In England and Wales you can only appeal if there was a legal technicality, or if fresh evidence comes to light AFTER the trial. This cannot be evidence that was available at the time of the original trial, it has to be NEW evidence that you could not have used previously.
Therefore if your barrister decides not to use a piece of evidence that you consider pivotal, you cannot ask for appeal using the same piece of evidence. It was available at the time of your original trial and was not used, you cannot use it as grounds for appeal. Neither can you appeal on the grounds that your sol or barrister was cr4p. Apparently you are the client, and the sol and barrister act under your instruction. Therefore if they were rubbish, it is your own fault!

Gem, it doesn't matter if the evidence wasn't used at the trial. If it was available but not used, it will not be considered grounds for appeal.

I'm sorry, but this it true.

As far as I know, the UK legal system is unique in this respect. Appeals are nigh-on impossible.

[gem]

hi saffron
thanks for your input .we do have some evidence that is new .

[fighter]

Gem, great to hear that you have new evidence.

Saffron, you really know a lot of stuff :-) It is helpful for me know these things too.

[gem]

hi thankyou all for your replies
we do have some new evidence for our appeal .,
but i do want to mention our barrister at the trial did put in his written advice of appeal that he thought the trial was even and fair errm WHAT ....
but he also said that unless we can come up with fresh medical evidence regards my son.s condition we would not be have a chance..
he knew about my son.s condition but chose to ignore it because i only realized at the trial that it had a major fact in the case. he did send for his medical reports during trial but felt it wasn.t enough i have obtained FRESH EVIDENCE through specialist urologist and background GP report. .barrister tells me to get it i... have got it .. so is the barrister wrong ...as this evidence was technically available during trial if he chose to get it mmmm
the net is so wide on this evidence lark ......

[worriedfather]

PV

I believe there was a pV overturned last year in Northampton, a polish chap was found guilty of assault and 1 count of rape but cleared of a second count of rape which had allegedly happened immediately after. The appeal court found the conviction unsafe. Look at Northampton chronicle and echo 22 march 2011 I will try and post a link
Good Luck


http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/ne...peal_1_2522694

[gem]

thanks for that worried father
i don.t know where i am with this appeal case at the moment .but i want to thankyou all for your input really appreciated.
my new solicitor really believes that the case was a pv because of the jury not the barrister and solicitor during the case. even though they were negligent and the barrister didn.t act in my son.s best interest
he thinks the verdict was unsafe because of the evidence put before them should have brought a NOT GUILTY verdict. he more or less said the jury must have been stupid to give a GUILTY on such a no evidence trial with the inconsistencies of accusers statements and witness statements .she was shown to be a liar even on the prosecutions witnesses
he is going tp pass this info on including new evidence to specialist barrister and see what happens.it may not be enough i know ....
i know a lot of the members on here have had the same injustice of being convicted with out evidence also . just need to try every avenue possible

[lawlessone2009]

I've had a few rants about 'evidence' so far I believe...

I know exactly what you are saying, evidence doesn't even seem to be a consideration!

There is absolutely nothing wrong with challenging the 'accepted' methods of conviction and you could even have yourself setting a precedent which 'balances' out something within the process which is currently wrong. A bit cryptic but hopefully you get the just of it...

[gem]

thanks lawless
i would love that to happen .. it.s about time the law took notice of these guilty verdicts that have not a shred of evidence. they convict innocent people and ruin families in the process. it is frightening that 12 people can sit and judge you and decide your fate when some of them are quite clearly not even bloody interested in the case. one of our jurors was asleep and one was clearly eyeing up our solicitors partner what a joke .... i will fight on and hopefully justice will prevail :bigsmil sorry this is a rant .......

[fighter]

wonder how the jury members are chosen :-) can anybody just apply for jury service without proving they can think logical? or what their motivations for being in there.. Back home we dont have jury system; this makes the trial more scary for me. The judge usually are more credible in my eyes to make decisions...