looking for justice and help

[vvnn8]

I am thinking that possibly they say there are no grounds with which to appeal because that evidence should have been put at trial. If you got to the courts of appeal, they would say "you should have insisted despite the barrister probably telling you "I am the expert I know what I am doing....."

One of mine succeeded where the barrister failed to use evidence that they knew existed, at trial.

https://pacso.co.uk/the-mr-kaz-appeal/

He had to suffer the indignity of having to undertake an IQ test to show he was basically "too thick" to instruct counsel. Also trial counsel had lied to the CA pretending that the client had specifically instructed her NOT to put that evidence in.

We could prove beyond a doubt that she was lying. These appeals that succeed on these grounds are very rare though. But not impossible, as you can see.

Very interesting RF.

[Rights Fighter]

It's interesting as the evidence in that case should have been put to the jury. Had it been it is unlikely they would have convicted. Other people coming up to trial may well have something similar going on in the background of their case..... so can learn from this one.

[lookingforjusticeandhelp]

I am thinking that possibly they say there are no grounds with which to appeal because that evidence should have been put at trial. If you got to the courts of appeal, they would say "you should have insisted despite the barrister probably telling you "I am the expert I know what I am doing....."

One of mine succeeded where the barrister failed to use evidence that they knew existed, at trial.

https://pacso.co.uk/the-mr-kaz-appeal/

He had to suffer the indignity of having to undertake an IQ test to show he was basically "too thick" to instruct counsel. Also trial counsel had lied to the CA pretending that the client had specifically instructed her NOT to put that evidence in.

We could prove beyond a doubt that she was lying. These appeals that succeed on these grounds are very rare though. But not impossible, as you can see.

morning, my husband asked the barrister to ask some of the questions that my husband had for him to ask in the trail and he said no iv got my own questions thank you and through the pad back at my husband and we told the barrister why we didnt tell no body but he didnt say that it would help the case me and my husband thought we had it all covered as there was no evidence

[lookingforjusticeandhelp]

we dont have no money to pay for a solicitor so im not sure on how to go on with out one as im not sure on the law and all the stuff that comes with it and the C.A.B said they cant help me my local MP has sent me form to fill out but ill need help with it and were i live i dont know were to go to ask

[Rights Fighter]

and we told the barrister why we didnt tell no body but he didnt say that it would help the case me

I am not sure what that means. Does it mean then you think you could have had witnesses who could have given evidence but you didn't tell them what was going on?

If so, are you saying that the barrister didn't say that they could help the case?

I can't help if you aren't clear in what you are trying to say. I appreciate that you are in the middle of a nightmare, but maybe double check before posting what you are saying? Otherwise we will be going round in circles

[lookingforjusticeandhelp]

I am not sure what that means. Does it mean then you think you could have had witnesses who could have given evidence but you didn't tell them what was going on?

If so, are you saying that the barrister didn't say that they could help the case?

I can't help if you aren't clear in what you are trying to say. I appreciate that you are in the middle of a nightmare, but maybe double check before posting what you are saying? Otherwise we will be going round in circles

sorry yes thats right we could of had witnesses if we told people at the time no the barrister didnt tell us

[Rights Fighter]

The problem with that is this: The court of appeal would ask "did you know about those witnesses before the trial?"

Your answer would be "yes".

They will not accept that the barrister did not tell you that you could make use of them. They will assume that as you knew about the potential witnesses then you should have pushed for them to be used. if you chose not to do that, for whatever reason, then they won't allow an appeal now.

Out of interest, what evidence could those witnesses have given that might have changed the jury's verdicts?