Witness criminal record

[vvnn8]

I am logging off for the night now but I will add you as a contact, so you can PM me.

If you are sending me a long message, I would very much appreciate it if you write in small paragraphs as I can't read large chunks of text. I have spent too long looking at computer monitors.......

Okey. I will send you a message tonight.

Thank you

[Rights Fighter]

Seen it. The best person to talk about it is the sol - but make them aware of the link I posted above too

[vvnn8]

Potentially what has been happening could be classed as "an Abuse of Process" - ie that if the CPS allow this then it could be said that they are abusing the criminal process.

You need to ask the solicitor or barrister about that as they would know more.

Hello all again,

CPS said to my Sol that they will disclose evidence to us yesterday but they didn´t again. My sol say that they are allow to do this if they have a reason to..
I don´t know if i can suggest something.. It seems like a game where the CPS are doing whatever they want and we can´t do nothing.

Every advice will be very appreciate

Thanks.

[Rights Fighter]

Can't really advice but comment, that defence counsel should make applications to the court for any outstanding disclosure that is required by the defence, if the CPS keep playing their dirty tricks.

Long gone are the days when allegations of crimes were investigated fairly and impartially. It's all about convictions now.

[vvnn8]

Can't really advice but comment, that defence counsel should make applications to the court for any outstanding disclosure that is required by the defence, if the CPS keep playing their dirty tricks.

Long gone are the days when allegations of crimes were investigated fairly and impartially. It's all about convictions now.

Good morning,

Thank you so much RF for being very active always.

However, this is the situation right now:

No information has been disclosed from the CPS to our barrister, despite the fact that several emails were sent to them.

The CPS responded that they couldn’t disclose any info until October 28th because the OIC was not available. We suggested an earlier deadline for October 24th, which they agreed.

Despite that agreement, they didn’t disclose the details about coaching and their lawyers details in the USA, neither the email from the complainant’s mum recognizing the coaching.

Only today, the CPS comunicated our barrister that the OIC has been doing investigations and keeping in touch with the lawyers that did coaching to the complainant in the USA, fact that the OIC was NOT supposed to do, as it was agreed, during the last Court hearing, that we will do the investigation, NOT THEM.

Is it legal that the OIC contacted the american lawyer?? Even if our barrister informed them at the Court not to do so and not to get in contact with the lawyers and they agreed that they will not.

It’s been a month we have been waiting for the disclosure of the details in order for us to start to investigate and get proper and real information about the coaching, and meanwhile the OIC has been contacting and informing the american lawyers about the abuse of process.

Doesn’t this fact strenghten, even more, the abuse of process application? I cannot see any way now that we would have a fair trial!

Thank you again.

[Rights Fighter]

Only today, the CPS comunicated our barrister that the OIC has been doing investigations and keeping in touch with the lawyers that did coaching to the complainant in the USA, fact that the OIC was NOT supposed to do, as it was agreed, during the last Court hearing, that we will do the investigation, NOT THEM.

Is it legal that the OIC contacted the american lawyer??

It really depends on how the judge directed the way this should go. If it was the judge who told the OIC/ CPS they could not contact the USA people, then I would think that going behind that order could be a contempt of court.

Because the defence tell CPS / OIC cannot do something, that doesn't mean that they cannot legally do it. I believe that it really is down to the judge.

If the OIC is conducting misfeasance in a public office then hopefully they will get into serious trouble. However, as I do not know the ins and outs of this, the best person to advise you is the solicitor.

Hopefully they have been helpful to you so far

[vvnn8]

It really depends on how the judge directed the way this should go. If it was the judge who told the OIC/ CPS they could not contact the USA people, then I would think that going behind that order could be a contempt of court.

Because the defence tell CPS / OIC cannot do something, that doesn't mean that they cannot legally do it. I believe that it really is down to the judge.

If the OIC is conducting misfeasance in a public office then hopefully they will get into serious trouble. However, as I do not know the ins and outs of this, the best person to advise you is the solicitor.

Hopefully they have been helpful to you so far

Hello again!

I´ve to say that the situation is becoming more and more tricky ..

The complainant did not allow defense to have notes of the coaching sessions in USA because "are very intimate" so we need to investigate starting with practically no information about it.

In the other hand, OIC contacted American lawyers and we obviously suppose trying to put the situation more in their side .. (meanwhile defense is not allow to do that)

So, actually everybody here (including CPS) suppose and know what happened (She received coaching during the previous weekend before trial) but she is trying to hide the evidence ...

I can not understand how, even being investigated for something illegal, everything is allowed to the complainant and I have to be quiet.. It is worthy of being published and made known to the whole world!!

We ll see

[Rights Fighter]

A good barrister should be able to cross-examine her on why she doesn't want that evidence before the jury and what does she have to hide.....

[vvnn8]

Hello again.

Thanks for the support RF.

The main issue is that there is a "Court Hearing" where the issue is going to be discussed and where we must provide the documentation that we have gathered to demonstrate that she actually received Coaching.

As I understand there are no precedents throughout the UK for a person who has said or the court heard that she has received coaching before the trial.

For this reason, everything is very slow... In addition, she has not waived the right of confidentiality that exists between the lawyers and the client in order that we can not find out what type of Coaching was carried out.

It is obvious by how she acts that she has something to hide and we also have evidence where she says she has received coaching but she hides the information and my question is:

How will the Court react? They are spending public money in a false accusation in a person who repeatedly violates the laws of the country and intends to leave well of this situation ...

Thank you

[Rights Fighter]

It is not the first case with this situation. Have you forgotten about this case, which I posted up about earlier?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...k-therapy.html

I cannot say how the court will react. That is for the barristers to argue and the judge to decide upon.

[vvnn8]

It is not the first case with this situation. Have you forgotten about this case, which I posted up about earlier?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...k-therapy.html

I cannot say how the court will react. That is for the barristers to argue and the judge to decide upon.

Hello RF.

Thank you for reply.

I had read so many times the URL you gave me but i think it is similar but not the same situation.

By the moment, a hearing will take place only for the purpose to resolve the coaching thing because a trial couldn't take place when people had been coached, as i´m sure you know. Trial is cancelled

As far as i know, in the other case, the court heard the evidence during trial. But sorry, i´m maybe wrong.

Im agree with you that the barrister will have a very important roll being persuasive to the Judge.

[Rights Fighter]

The story in the link - she had "counselling" which was construed as coaching