shirleymckie.myfastforum.org

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149 Location: Glasgow

It has been suggested by some that crown Procognitions are never disclosable.

Please read page 10 :

http://www.copfs.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/13547/0000457.pdf

�� Material discrepancies between the contents of a police statement
and the witness’ position at precognition may bear on the witness’
credibility and/or reliability and would fall to be disclosed.

So much for Precognitions not being Admissible too

Fiscal · Joined: 23 Dec 2008 Posts: 111 Location: Edinburgh

See Fiona Raitt's book Evidence Prinicples, Policy and Practice.....published in 2008!

It is the resource that Law School's across Scotland use in their Evidence modules....!

MODERATED OUT

STOP interpreting the law, without the appropriate professional training is dangerous it leads to this path of you thinking you undertand something MODERATED OUT
_________________
Mr Fiscal

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149 Location: Glasgow

Fiona Raitt actually did a great analysis of Disclosure here:

http://www.eupjournals.com/doi/pd...366/elr.2006.10.1.102?cookieSet=1

And in particular the Holland case which was decided on a "CROWN PRECOGNITION"

This is her analysis of crown precognitions here:

(3) Crown precognitions
The third issue considered here is the status of Crown precognitions. To what extent,
if at all, might they give rise to requests for disclosure? In particular are there any
circumstances where they may come within the ambit of “all material evidence” that
must be disclosed to the defence? Crown precognitions are specifically excluded from
the 2004 Practice Statement, and according to Lord Rodger in Holland the duty of
disclosure extends only to police statements.23 One could therefore conclude that no
duty attaches to statements obtained by Crown precognition officers, doubtless on the
basis they are inevitably “filtered though the mind of the precognoscer”.24
However, the fact that the offending comment in Holland in relation to the
identification parade was made in a Crown precognition and that its non-disclosure
was still held to be in breach of the duty of disclosure suggests that even precognitions
may not be immune from disclosure.

"Anyone fighting for Disclosure must read this article in full"

Happy Reading

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149 Location: Glasgow

According to the following article from the Privy Council to Prime Minister, Crown Office should not be allowed to Cherry Pick which evidence it discloses to the Defence.

Although the main issue is interception it touches upon artilces 6 & 8 also, and is well worth a good read for those seeking Justice in our Courts:

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm73/7324/7324.pdf

Some quotes:

Angeline · Joined: 02 Oct 2008 Posts: 148

Two points here:

(1) Why do we have such a ridiculous system in the first place? If justice is the true purpose of the Criminal Justice System, why on earth don't we simply have full disclosure? It's not about legal arguments, it's about politics.
Our governments have had no qualms about "cherry picking" bits from our continental cousins' inquisitorial system (when it suits the prosecution) so why not incorporate full disclsure as well?

There's nothing to be lost, and everything to be gained. It wouldn't require huge alterations to the system, and it might help keep a few innocent people out of jail.

Michael Mansfield, in his introduction to "Presumed Guilty" in 1993 suggested several changes (this one included) in the hope that we wouldn't be seeing the same sorts of injustice "twenty years from now." It's 16 years since he wrote that, and nothing's changed. No, actually, that's not true - it's worse now than then.
It's time for our CJS to stop hiding behind disclosure and get its act together.

(2) Come now, Fiscal ' "stop interpreting the law?" Are you suggesting we mere minions should know our place and simply sit back and accept what's done on our behalf by our superiors and betters? It's the 21st century, mate. And, just for the record, what do you think every lawyer and judge is doing? Yup, interpreting the law, within their own tight confines.

Trying to justify injustice and unfairness on the grounds that they're upheld by technical argument is not acceptable. If the law has nothing to hide, let it be open and understandable to all.

And if it's not, then thank god for people like wullie, who will do their best to educate themselves, and the rest of us, as to what the law says, means, and could be taken to mean (ie, interpreted.)
_________________
As long as one heart still holds on, then hope will never really be gone

Fiscal · Joined: 23 Dec 2008 Posts: 111 Location: Edinburgh

Angeline,

Lawyers are taught how to interpret the law one of the first compulsory modules EVERY law school in Scotland makes its undergraduates study is Legal System/Process and one of the main subjects therein is Judicial Interpretation which is when you are taught how to understand statutes and common law.

I think it is important for people to understand the law for the jurisdiction they live in but interpreting it without formal training can lead to wrong conclusions.

Don't ever call me mate!
_________________
Mr Fiscal

Angeline · Joined: 02 Oct 2008 Posts: 148

My point is that legal professionals interpret the law in specific ways (and you admit that 1st year law students are immersed in this particular manner of interpretation). It is this closed and narrow form of interpretations which I suggest is dangerous, not ordinary people seeking to question those interpretations.

You speak of the untrained coming to "wrong conclusions" yet every miscarriage of justice new or old, recognised or not, is an example of trained legal professionals coming to wrong conclusions. Ordinary people drawing "wrong" conclusions is unlikely to do any serious harm. Legal professionals, on the other hand, literally hold people's lives in their hands.

Rather than defend a system which is hopelessly outdated and inadequate, and attacking those who try to understand where it all goes wrong, why not turn your attention to justice in error, and apply the same system of judgement there?

I note you would prefer me not to use the term "mate" when addressing you in posts. No offence intended.
_________________
As long as one heart still holds on, then hope will never really be gone

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 1149 Location: Glasgow

How many times have we heard Judges say the following:

In our opinion we do not believe the legislators intended this to mean, or intended this legislation to be used in such a fashion ?

Wonder though exactly how many times they sought the legislators opinions before making their assumptions ?

scotkaz · Joined: 28 Aug 2008 Posts: 527