shirleymckie.myfastforum.org

scotkaz · Joined: 28 Aug 2008 Posts: 527

I have been looking at the way appeals are denied in this country. The most recent being George Beattie. He is denied on the very reasons some other cases get sent back to the appeal courts.

It makes no sense to me.

The uncertainty and randomness of laws and appeal decisions in our courts, makes it obvious that there are certain inherent contradictions that make unfairness and discrimination in cases of miscarriage of justice not merely uncontrollable accessories in the judicial system, but its very essence.

Appeals are dealt with in an arbitrary and irrational manner. The injustice happening is like lightening, randomly striking some defendants and not others."

This is so very wrong and needs to be re looked at as soon as possible.

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

Scotkaz

I will certainly agree that there are some very Inconsistent appeal decisions being made in our courts.

One year a case is a misdirection appeal and denied someone a fair hearing then the next year it is dismissed by the same Judge and Prosecutors.

One case is an Anderson appeal and others with very similar or even stronger grounds fails.

Compare Nat Fraser with Gair and Kidd for example.

In Gair despite the evidence that denied him the opportunity to challenge a Crown Witness about his Mentality there was still two Police Identifying him, His appeal is quashed.

In Fraser there was evidence the Police took the rings then planted them a week later (Evidence from two Police)
Fraser did not know of the police statements at the time of his trial but mysteriously the statements fall out his lawyers folder at the appeal denying him his Undisclosed Evidence Appeal.

His Lawyer certainly has a few questions to answer.

If it did not proceed as a Non Disclosure appeal then it should have proceeded as an Anderson Appeal.

Either way Fraser was not aware of the contradictory evidence at the time of his trial and he should have won his appeal.

The Jury being deprived of this crucial evidence (which even the Crown said would have caused them to faint) denied Fraser of his right to a Fair Independent and Impartial hearing and their verdict returned in it's absence is absurd and cannot be allowed to stand.

david · Joined: 01 Mar 2009 Posts: 52 Location: edinburgh

perhaps one of the reasons for inconsistency is the mood of the judges on a particular day. Sounds ridiculous but I would'nt put it past them.

David