Our new owner Sasha Capocci is famous for her cake making. She donates her cakes to good causes.
A MISCARRIAGE OF INJUSTICE
A man appears in court 12 months after the first allegation of sexual abuse against a lady. The accused had never met this council for his defense until 15 minutes before he was due in court. His original barrister that he and his supporters had met 3 times before was unable to represent him. His supporters asked the brief to request an adjournment. For two reasons the brief he was unable to access his computer for the information for his defense and was not familiar with the case having only been told to represent him 2 days before the trial. Vital witnesses had not been informed and two were unable to attend due to illness. The accused gave him a copy of the questions for him to ask his accuser. Most of them he ignored or did not seek an explanation as to why she had purposely sat next to him on two occasions. The accuser said the defendant sexually abused her twice. In court, she denied that the first instance was sexual having signed a statement to the police that it was sexual. This in any book of the law is perjury. She was very emotional giving evidence behind a screen and almost collapsed. The circumstance is that in the first instance the accused was not in the place that his accuser said he was and a witness to that was unable to attend court because of illness. The defendant’s counsel failed to ask his accuser who she was she talking to when she stated the accused invaded her space whilst she was talking to a friend. If this witness had been real why was this person not in court as a witness? So emotional was her performance this may have distracted the defense to question her further on the allegations that she was terrified of him and every time she saw him she would shake. This was an out and out lie since there had been numerous occasions since the first allegation and the second allegation when they had been in the same place together with no sign of trauma. Many witnesses could have been called to contradict her allegations. Further witness Statements were made that gave indications that she indeed sat next to the accused man on two occasions on purpose. There were also indications that she had been communicating with him with emails offering photographs for the publication he owned. In the second allegation, she claimed that the accused abused her with two hands in a very crowded room. She made no attempt to remove his hands but she stated after he stopped she gasped. Her boyfriend who was two foot in front of her saw or heard nothing but saw the accused with a plate of food in his hand. This contradicts her allegation. She also stated that she told a friend what had happened and that friend advised her not to go to the police. His accuser also stated that once he started to abuse her she put her plate of food down whilst this friend was looking at her. This friend denies having seen the defendant at that time or even telling her not to report the incident to the police. She made this statement in front of 7 people and also said that the first time she saw him was later in the afternoon when she asked him if he wanted anything to eat. He said no as he had eaten a few hours before. The jury initially wanted to return a verdict of reasonable doubt. The judge would not allow this. The Jury returned a verdict of guilty with the only evidence having been given by his accuser The defendant was instructed not to give evidence and that his witnesses would not be called. His brief it seems was wrongly under the impression that as her boyfriend saw nothing so there was no case to answer. It was her crocodile tears in the witness box that hypnotized the jury to bring in a guilty verdict. It was farcical since one of the witnesses who needed at least a weeks notice because of his job could not attend and only two days notice was supplied to the accused. This witness would have stated that he was on other premises when his accuser said he was with her. How can he be in two places at the same time? The judge had not summed up the case properly and said to the jury go with your everyday experience of life and how you feel. He should have pointed out to the jury that the only evidence was her emotional performance. At the sentencing of the accused, the judge refused compensation to her of £3500.00. No explanation was given but one must assume that the Judge was doubtful that the defendant was guilty. The appeal judges said that the defendant cannot criticize trial counsel and refused the appeal. This was despite the fact that the accused and his witnesses were refused by his defense counsel to give evidence. Nepotism declared itself a stumbling block to justice.
The defendant was disabled and was walking with a stick.
The opportunity to give evidence against him was made public a few days after he was charged. No other woman had complained that he had sexually assaulted them. Was her motivation to discredit him for financial gain or to damage his reputation so that the business that he owned would cease to exist.
He passed a polygraph test. It gave no indication that he was capable of doing what she claimed.
He was unexpectedly elected as a councilor in an area that his party had never won but he did. He was probably considered as a liability since he favored people over the party and in the past had been critical in the past of the council and organization affiliated to the council he was now a representative of.
WAS THIS A CONSPIRACY
what was the motive for David's accuser doing this to him?
They had been presumed as friends for a few years. David had no malice against her. The reason is not clear at this stage.
Never before has David been accused of molesting anybody in his 74 years on this earth.
People that know him understand that he is a very polite elderly gentleman. he goes out of his way to make friends and to help people.
He was elected as a Conservative Councillor for the Labour heartland ward of Cowley Hill.
He was well-known and very much liked as a person who had helped many people out with problems they had with their housing association.
Indeed he had been elected 3 times as the chair of the residents association. He lost his position when he did whistle blow on the Housing Association for incompetence to the local MP.
David was not expected to win this seat in Cowley Hill or to defeat the leader of the labour Group, which he did by 23 votes. The last time the Conservative candidate only polled a few votes and coming in at a poor third.
David was and never will be a yes person. He fights for the rights of individuals.
Strange that when the leader of the Borough Council was sorting out committee post for the elected members. David was only given one committee to serve on.
All the other cllrs. were given at least two committees to serve on and outside bodies. David was bypassed for this and an explanation from the leader saying "you have enough to do" This did not make sense as he was part time with the magazine and had staff helping him.
The praise that the leader heaped upon the former labour leader was more of a friendship lost since he declared that she was an asset to him on the Studio board and would be very much missed.
Eight former Borough Councillors were not reselected to stand for the party at the 2015 election 4 of them former mayors. It seems that they were not favored by the leader as they put people before party.
Did the leader only want yes men and women, or those who put the party first and voters second?
When David voted with the opposition to the bill that was aimed at silencing the minority parties the Knives came out. The malicious accusation was not as well thought-out as it could have been. Too many loopholes that should be examined at the appeal court. The very loopholes that David's brief ignored.
Did you know that 1 in 5 juries get it wrong,
Mostly because the evidence is withheld or behavior patterns are misinterpreted.
1 in 10 innocent people is accused.
The soap opera that is the Vicky Pryce trial shows the archaic rituals of our courts to be little more than legal parlor games.
A barrister once said no such thing as justice or injustice it depends on who tells the best story or who gives an Oscar-inspired oratory that will win the day.
Juries Get It wrong too many times says new study
One of the most fundamental rights in our country is the right to a trial by jury. Many people have claimed, however, that juries are getting the results wrong too often. Recently, a new Northwestern University study shows that juries in criminal cases many times are getting it wrong.
Out of 271 cases, juries gave wrong verdicts in at least one out of eight cases, according to “Estimating the Accuracy of Jury Verdicts,” a paper by a Northwestern University statistician that was published in the July issue of Journal of Empirical Legal Studies.
Spencer had judges listen to the same evidence as the jury and then compared the compared decisions of actual jurors with decisions of judges who were hearing the cases they were deciding. In other words, during deliberations, the judge filled out a questionnaire with his or her belief as to the correct verdict. In essence, the study used the judges as the “second opinion of what the verdict should be.”
By comparing agreement rates of judges and juries over time and across jurisdictions, and even across types of cases, Spencer’s statistical analysis could give insights into the comparative accuracy of verdicts in different sets of cases.
The agreement rate was 77 percent in the NCSC study and 80 percent for the earlier study. A key assumption of Spencer’s study is that, on average, the judge’s verdict is at least as likely to be correct as the jury’s verdict. Based on that assumption, the study found that the 77 percent agreement rate means that juries are accurate up to 87 percent of the time or less, or reach an incorrect verdict in at least one out of eight cases.
It is important to note that the studies on verdict accuracy will not tell whether the verdict for a particular case was correct or not. This study will simply help assess what percentage of verdicts are correct.
These findings continue to support the fact that mediation is a preferred choice amongst parties in resolving disputes. This is because mediation moves away from the statistical 13% mistaken ruling and goes to complete control by the parties. The parties can know in their own case whether something is right or wrong for the circumstances.
Moreover, this research confirms what lawyers have long been saying: There is no guarantee or certainty in trial – even if you are right, you can be wrong.
A technical report is available at http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/publications/papers/2006/wp0605.pdf .
When a genuine case of sexual abuse is not investigated the real victim feels hurt.
In the case against David this was a high profile case and was not really investigated.
The CPS had no evidence that any assault took place.
The only witness said he saw nothing.
Despite this the CPS still wanted the case to go ahead.
This woman who brought this fictitious allegation against David should be ashamed of her self, when genuine cases are ignored by the police.
She calls her self a catholic. She should have gone to confession and admitted to the priest that she did bear false witness against her neighbour.
Click the not guilty image to read this true story
Only one-quarter of Britons believe the legal system is fair and more than half consider UK justice system inaccessible, a new survey shows Judges attending an annual service at Westminster Abbey. Only 37% of people surveyed said they trusted the legal system’s professionals.
Only a quarter of the population believes that the UK’s legal system is “fair and transparent”, according to a survey released by a leading law firm.
Two-thirds of those questioned feel that wealth is now a more important factor in gaining access to justice than it used to be, the opinion poll commissioned by the solicitors Hodge Jones & Allen found.
More than 2,000 people were interviewed by the research organization Populus for the survey which recorded an overwhelming majority (79%) agreeing with the statement that “it is the responsibility of the government to ensure justice is provided for all”.
Only 37% said they trusted the professionals working within the legal system, while 54% felt the justice system was inaccessible. Only 28% of the Afro-Caribbean community and 17% of the Sikh community said they trusted lawyers.
Patrick Allen, the senior partner at Hodge Jones & Allen, said: “These statistics represent a damning indictment of the British justice system. If millions of people across the country are intimidated, alienated and confused by the prospect of seeking justice in 21st-century Britain then we should consider our legal system to have failed in its fundamental duty to provide justice for all.
“The voices of the public and the profession are in complete unison that cuts to legal aid and the introduction of court fees have only served to exacerbate an already difficult situation.
“It comes as no surprise that those in the lowest income bracket have the least trust in a system that appears unfair, confusing and inaccessible. In light of these findings, the recent budget delivered in the spending review needs to be reconsidered. Without legal aid, ordinary people are not getting the access they deserve.”
Under the latest spending review, the government has guaranteed £700m to modernize the courts and introduce more technology to improve their efficiency. There were no further cuts to legal aid which has been repeatedly cut by previous administrations.
Allen said: “The public has a clear appetite for modernization, so we welcome the government’s promise to take the courts from a paper-based system to a digital one. However, technology is not a magic bullet; we cannot rely on it as the only solution,’’ he said since that could potentially ostracise the most vulnerable members of society. Better education about the law must also come hand in hand with any move towards an online or digital system.”
Report by Andrew Fox
Victor Nealon spent 17 years in prison for attempted rape
Victims of two of Britain’s most worrying miscarriages of justice of modern times are to take the Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, to court over changes to the law stopping them from receiving compensation for the 24 years they wrongly spent behind bars.
Victor Nealon, who spent 17 years in prison for attempted rape before his conviction was quashed, has begun legal action after being left penniless, suffering from post-traumatic stress and unable to work as a result of his wrongful imprisonment. He has been joined by one of Britain’s youngest miscarriage of justice victims, Sam Hallam, who, aged 17, was convicted of murder after a trainee chef was stabbed during a fight in London.
UK miscarriages of justice
Mr Hallam’s conviction was thrown out by the Court of Appeal in 2012 after he spent seven years in jail. Judges heard that crucial evidence supporting his alibi had been left undiscovered on his mobile phone for years.
The legal challenge is seen as a test case for a new stricter regime to compensate the victims of miscarriages introduced last year. Crucially, it changed eligibility for compensation which means it paid only when the new facts resulting in the quashing of a conviction shows “beyond reasonable doubt” they did not commit the offence.
Barrister Baroness Helena Kennedy called the change “an affront to our system of law” when the Bill was debated. “When people have wasted long periods of their life in jail for crimes they didn’t commit, the least society can do is provide some compensation,” said Sadiq Khan, the shadow Justice Secretary. “This government was warned the changes would place too great a burden on the victim to prove their innocence, even after they’d been freed from jail. It’s a mark of a civilised country that when mistakes of such a serious nature like this are made, the Government should pay compensation to make up for the error. The rules require review urgently.”