general question about conviction

[Saffron]

Gem, I'm very pleased that you have completely new evidence
Fighter, I don't know a lot of stuff I just remember assuming that we would be able to appeal the jury's decision and was swiftly put in my place by our (cr4ppy) barrister.

However.....
Just because the barrister you used previously says that there are no grounds for appeal does not necessarily mean that there are none. RF has assisted on many successful appeals where the original barrister told his client that they couldn't appeal. Some barristers and sols have a tendency to lose interest once a Guilty verdict is returned.

With regard to juries....well, anyone can serve on a jury as long as they are on the electoral roll, over 18 and do not have a criminal record themselves. My Aunty did jury service recently and was appalled at the ridiculous attitude of some of her fellow jurors. Apparently they came out with comments such as "He must have done it because he's black" and (another gem) "I'll go with the majority verdict because I want to play golf this afternoon".

The sad fact is that if you are called to jury service your employer is not obliged to pay you for the time away from work. The government will subsidise your lost pay at the same rate as minimum wage and they do pay your transport costs. A friend if mine who is an architect was called to jury service. For two weeks he went from earning over £20 an hour to earning minimum wage. Therefore many people who are in full time employment will do their utmost to avoid jury service.

Additionally, jurors are not asked about their personal experiences/prejudices/beliefs etc. There is no test of ability to listen to, collate and logically assimilate facts. Combine this with the fact that the "legalese" spoken by many judges is confusing even for a University graduate like myself and is it any wonder that so many ridiculous verdicts are passed?

OK, rant over

[gem]

hi saffron
yes we have some new evidence....but was hoping the pv would be the icing on the cake and swing it for us ... just want to be armed in all corners

[fighter]

ah that's sad about the jury members! but they are under oath when they go in court right? I will pray hard to get a good set of jury!

[Rights Fighter]

Fighter, check your emails..... I've tried to contact you

[fighter]

RF, just saw this post. no email from you.. but i have set my setting to receive any emails :-)

[Rights Fighter]

I clicked on your profile and it said I could send an email.......grrrrr I will try again

[fighter]

what about private message? nothing came through to my email ..

[Rights Fighter]

Just tried again. Are you checking the email address that you use for this forum?

[fighter]

okay just got it now.. :-) thanks!!

[largactyl1]

Hi there just a couple of sort of relevant things here:

1). With regard to juries....well, anyone can serve on a jury as long as they are on the electoral roll, over 18 and do not have a criminal record themselves. My Aunty did jury service recently and was appalled at the ridiculous attitude of some of her fellow jurors. Apparently they came out with comments such as "He must have done it because he's black" and (another gem) "I'll go with the majority verdict because I want to play golf this afternoon".

I wasn't allowed to do jury service - because despite being a fully qualified teacher (now medically retired), having a Masters in Philosophy and a post-grad Counselling qualification, because I have bipolar very severely, I was deemed "Mentally incompetent" I have a letter to prove it - I took it to the council tax office as you don't have to pay council tax if you don't understand what it is (very low IQ, not having poor grasp of English/Welsh) No go! PAH!

2). Do legal teams ever get sued by people who have been sent down on questionale evidence just because their defence team were inadequate - obviously a lot of legal people are brilliant at what they do, but, as with any profession, there seems to be a significant number of time-servers or even negligence.

Just wondering

Jen

[largactyl1]

PS, re. previous post - the first bit of point 1 was a quote from Saffron I think x

[Casehardened]

2). Do legal teams ever get sued by people who have been sent down on questionale evidence just because their defence team were inadequate - obviously a lot of legal people are brilliant at what they do, but, as with any profession, there seems to be a significant number of time-servers or even negligence.

Hi Jen,

If the solicitor has patently and provably fallen down on the job then a complaint to the Law Society or the Legal Ombudsman may provide redress.

It is important to note though that, even if the complaint is upheld and compensation awarded, this will have no bearing on the verdict nor can it be used as grounds for appeal.

The legal team is deemed to be acting on the instructions of the defendant (this is why it is so important for the defendant to be pro-active in the defence) so a failing in the case is deemed to be down to the defendant; therefore the normal avenues for an appeal need to be explored.

[Rights Fighter]

Originally Posted by largactyl1
2). Do legal teams ever get sued by people who have been sent down on questionale evidence just because their defence team were inadequate - obviously a lot of legal people are brilliant at what they do, but, as with any profession, there seems to be a significant number of time-servers or even negligence.

My first successful appeal was based on the fact that the sols and barrister did not follow their clients instructions. A solicitor friend is working on that on a no-win no-fee basis. He thinks we have a 70% chance of success.

[gem]

in our case my son had no chance to give instructions to his solicitor and barrister
they told him what was going to happen and my son let them.
but in my son.s defence he knew no better he thought they were the professionals.
he told his side of the story. and they thought they would do a professional job.
he also told them about to check out the alleged location of the rape as is commonly used by teenagers and dog walkers.they never used it in court. so technically that piece of evidence and more bits they never used is in my eyes is negligent. i defiantly
think they were not working in my son.s best interests. how many others get away with this.......... thank you RF for that extra little snippet made me feel a whole lot better

[Rights Fighter]

I must add that criticism of trial sols and counsel is usually viewed with great disdain by the CA so do not get your hopes up.

In my "Mr Kaz" case we could prove the barrister had lied to CA, hiding away in her overseas retreat to which she had run, possibly after realising she had been caught out.

The solicitors should have properly instructed her and checked what she was doing - so they will be sued as well as they did not fulfil their obligations.