Now as many of you now know I believe Keran is guilty, from the above extract, you would be led to believe the Directions hearing doesn't believe this and is granting Keran an appeal.
Alas this is not entirely the case: An appeal is not granted at a Directions Hearing.
The Magistrates court (sorry ROYAL COURT, my mistake) hear all of the evidence that Kerans legal team plan to bring to the 'new trial'. The Judges will listen to all 'new eveidence' provided and if they decide it is valid then an appeal will be granted.
They did not afford Keran's trial MERIT for an appeal, they merely stated the 'evidence' presented had merit but not full merit to warrant an appeal so they are to come back again with more for the Judges to decide on the way forward.
In, by saying 'evidence' I am strictly referring to 'Experts', 'Procedures', Diseases, Alternatives.
As you are aware by now, Iain DOES NOT think any of the above should be used against someone in a trial BUT seemingly can be used FOR someone.
I just thought I could let you know some of the legal Jargon so you can keep track.
PS: As most legal eagles will know Bio-mechanics is not recognised in the UK so I am sure that theory is OUT (",)
Fiat Justicia
Some fun facts to help you to understand a Directions hearing so that you know what to understand for a retrial:
- Generally, there is no trial in a Magistrates court, only consideration of the record of the evidence presented to the trial court and all the pre-trial and trial court proceedings are reviewed—unless the appeal is by way of re-hearing, new evidence will usually only be considered on appeal in very rare instances, for example if that material evidence was unavailable to a party for some very significant reason such as prosecutorial misconduct. (as this was held in a royal courts there is leave for an appeal but still not retrial)
- The petitioner has the opportunity to present arguments for the granting of the appeal and the respondent can present arguments against it.
- At such hearings each party is allowed a brief presentation at which the Magistrate judges ask questions based on their review of the record below and the submitted briefs.
6 comments:
Again you have half a story - i love that you rely on the facts so much !!!
The case was heard in the royal courts of justice not some magistrates court and she has been given leave to appeal.( I am sure the judges who are amongst the top in the land would be pleased to be referred to as magistrates!)Read about the suzanne holdsworth case and you will realise after the 3 day hearing that keran has now been granted Suzannes conviction was found to be unsafe. Kerans case was in court in November when they asked for further information which was presented yesterday and now we have the 3 days.
I appreciate that you feel Keran is guilty and that is your choice but don't try and cause trouble and further animosity in a very sensitive situation for all parties by not reporting the accurate information.
By the way an appeal is nearly always based on new evidence unless the legal process was not adhered to in the first place - in fact that had to be confirmed and shown yesterday. The judges stressed that previous evidence was NOT relevant and could not be used.
I will post the above because as I have stated before I am not a legal eagle, I know enough to get by.
I was not aware it was in a Royal court, even so, kerans team have been told to come back with evidence on their 3 days to support a new trial that DOES not mean there will be one!
I agree but you were saying there may not be an appeal ! That is happening . I agree we don't know if there will be a retrial, conviction quash or what will happen but the appeal is out there
I appreciate you publishing the comment. I want the facts to be correct. The legal team have been in front of the royal court of justice twice now and I think that says something about whether is a case to answer. These guys are tough and do not tolerate time wasters. I just want peace for all parties involved.
The Royal Courts of Justice was opened by Queen Victoria in 1882 and became the permanent home of the Supreme Court. The history of the administration of justice in England and Wales spans many centuries. By the mid-19th century‚ a number of separate courts had come into existence at different times and to meet different needs. Many anomalies and archaisms had arisen and it was recognised that this state of affairs was unacceptable‚ and‚ in consequence‚ the Judicature Acts of 1873-75 reconstituted all the higher courts. The Judicature Acts abolished the former courts and established in their place a Supreme Court of Judicature‚ the name of which was changed in 1981 to the Supreme Court of England and Wales.
The Supreme Court consists of two courts: the High Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal. The High Court consists of three Divisions dealing mainly with civil disputes: the Chancery Division (which took over the work of the old High Court of Chancery)‚ the Queen’s Bench Division (which incorporated the jurisdiction of the three former common law courts: the Court of King’s Bench‚ the Court of Common Pleas and the Court of Exchequer) and the Probate‚ Divorce and Admiralty Division which took over the former Court of Admiralty‚ Court of Probate and Court for Divorce. This last division has itself been replaced by the Family Division which was created in 1970.
When the proposals to establish the Supreme Court were being debated in Parliament‚ it was thought that the jurisdiction of the House of Lords as the Supreme Court of Appeal would be curtailed or even abolished altogether.? However the House of Lords still retains its power of hearing appeals from the criminal and civil courts in England including the Supreme Court (as well as certain appeals from Scotland and Northern Ireland which have separate legal systems).
Although both the Court of Appeal and High Court normally sit in the Royal Courts of Justice High Court actions are frequently heard in other centres throughout the country and the Court of Appeal occasionally sits out of London.
In 1972‚ a third branch of the Supreme Court‚ called the Crown Court‚ was created by Parliament. This replaced the old courts of Assize and Quarter Sessions and deals mainly with the more serious criminal cases. The Crown Court does not‚ however‚ sit within the Royal Courts of Justice but at a number of other permanent centres throughout England and Wales. The best known of these being the Central Criminal Court widely referred to as the Old Bailey.
Whatever the outcome of this nothing can change the fact a beautiful happy child has cruely been taken from the arms of her loving parents and no fighting between the believers and non believers can change that. The courts may find her not guilty but the parents must just want to know the truth. The CPS brought this case based on the evidence that they had and the jury found her guilty. We must remember never judge everyone as a miscarriage otherwise a Murderer will walk free or visa versa. Judge on fact and evidence not by freedom or sentence by Media
I completely agree - the parents must wonder what on earth is happening. They have been told something by the CPS but ultimately they may never know exactly what happened which is the real tragedy
Post a Comment