And if the on-line petition and public opinion/press outrage played even a very tiny part in helping the "system" to work well.........that can't be a bad thing, can it?
Err yes it can. That's not how our judicial system works and I do not want to live in a world where Tabloid stoked outrage based on half the story and dodgy half baked opinions from populist politicians can have any bearing on sentencing.
Absolutely, we are far better off with judges who, for instance, aren't afraid to say how much they admire the courage of burglars. /cheapshot No, but really, I have to agree with t'shadow here, trial by media isn't the right way to go about things. However, it is often the case that miscarriages of justice are only fully brought to light by the application of public scrutiny. Some sort of checks and balances effect is at work, rightly or wrongly.
That is true. Many miscarriages of justice have eventually been dealt with after publicity campaigns, such as the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, the Maguire family, Stefan Kiszko, the Carl Bridgwater case, and many others. Those were all people imprisoned for many years even though they were innocent of any crime. Some died in prison. The legal process of trials and appeals had failed to work properly in those cases. The case of N is nothing like that. N committed serious firearms offences, pleaded guilty, and received an exceptionally lenient sentence; he appealed to the CA and was given an even more lenient sentence. The prosecutors had decided not to prosecute N for stealing huge quantities of ammo over a period of years, including boxes of armour piercing. The process worked well in N’s favour, in the event, and he should think himself very lucky indeed. There is no question of N’s case having been a miscarriage. It would be an insult to all the people who have suffered real miscarriages of justice if anyone pretended that N could be in the same category.
there is a world of difference between being innocent of any crime and not being able to have the case proven against them....either by fooking up the evidence or not finding the evidence.
There may be a world of difference but there isn't a legal difference. What we need are vigilantes who never get it wrong and who never give themselves away, so that we don't know that it is going on ... Waitaminute ... how do we know that we don't already have that? * Twilight Zone Music *
I am sorry to post this having said that I would post anymore on this matter but this artical will demonstrate how evil some can be. SAS hero Danny Nightingale's £40k shortfall as family duped by donor | UK | Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express Not to mention several others who started donation sites only to trouser the money for themselves.
As we are all aware, Sgt Nightingale could have applied for legal aid from AFCLAA, as nearly everyone prosecuted for serious offences in the Court Martial does. He chose not to, which is odd but his privilege. Now, if the Express is to be believed, a large sum of costs is left owing. Well well, we live and learn.
BBC News - SAS gun appeal: Danny Nightingale conviction overturned So the convictions, based on N's guilty plea, have been quashed by the CMAC on the basis that the advice he was given by his previous defence barrister had applied undue pressure on him to plead guilty. It's an argument an appellant can only run if he briefs a new barrister, obviously. So now for the retrial at which he must necessarily plead not guilty. Since the evidence that N did what was alleged is overwhelming factually, he will have to pin his hopes on the Service Prosecuting Authority making a mess of the prosecution, or bottling it - which is always possible, but not very likely. And if N is convicted again, the sentence (now following a not guilty plea, remember) will inevitably have to be more severe. We await developments with interest.
I'm guessing the verdict: Not Guilty by Reason of Popularity. Or maybe, Diminished Responsibility, but my money's on the first one.
N was never prosecuted for stealing hundreds of rounds of ammo over a period of years including boxes of armour piercing. The prosecutors decided only to go for possession of the gun and the ammo. But now the case has been put back to the beginning and is set for retrial, an interesting question arises. Will N now be tried for the thefts as well as the possession?
