Our world is upside down

[heartbreaking]

That's true and he was very informative at the first sitting taking 2 hours to litrally go through everything

We went back with more information and he took it Al down and was very interesting and seemed to k ow his stuff.

I don't think we could ask anything else really as there's been no charge as of yet.

[can it get worse]

Hi - I sort of guessed you might ask that!

I'm not certain of the definite answer??

My opinion is that they should have expertise in this field and know how to handle cases where the 'evidence' is merely one person's word.

Sorry it's not much help. It just so important to get it right and we only have one bite of this cherry.

My partner's original sol (prior to charge) was lovely. After charge he wanted us to stay with him and he said he'd like to try out this case (or words similar). Although he was such a nice person and always helpful, we felt we could not risk going with him after charge due to his lack of experience in this area.

[heartbreaking]

His sol seems to know his stuff and has seen my other half for four hours already without payment.

He seems to know his stuff but other than that how can you tell??

[can it get worse]

His solicitor seems good.

Hi HB - I know RF has already given good advice but please please please make sure that you have good sol. and that he is experienced in this type of allegation.

Sending you kind thoughts and hoping that the end is on its way for you. The waiting is awful with not many good days.
xx

[Jockc2330]

Apology accepted



People mean well when they advise - but sometimes if a person takes the wrong advice, it can mean the difference between a guilty and not guilty verdict.

Respect to you and the team, I admire your conviction....and how quickly you type.
Looking forward to reading the article you sent.

Respectfully yours.

Jockc2330

[Rights Fighter]

Apology accepted

In the past we've had people come on here and give completely the wrong advice and when I have attempted to correct it (for the benefit of those who might believe it) I got shot down in flames.

Most appeals are found on misdirections / missed directions. Some are found on fresh evidence. I had three turned down by solicitors that I had reviewed as the evidence wasn't fresh. One I managed to find a barrister to take it on and the evidence was accepted by the CA and the convictions were quashed in November 2008. Trial defence counsel was sued by the client as she lied to the court as to why she did not make use of the evidence (that I found in the family court bundle) and she was proved to be lying. Had that evidence been put to the jury he would never have gone to prison - hence the compensation after taking action against trial counsel.

An application I sent to the CCRC was referred back in 2010 and succeeded on fresh medical evidence, although sols had turned my arguments down. I could leave it so did the application myself.

Another one CCRC application I did and referred back to CA is to be heard shortly - same grounds fresh medical evidence that other solicitors and barristers thought wouldn't succeed.

In 2011 I went to stay with a family in Cornwall and took 10 fresh witness statements, six of which were accepted by the CA. These referred to retractions that were made before the trial (the complainants said they would stop the case proceeding but failed to do so) - so it wasn't fresh. However the content of the evidence was considered to be credible and the court accepted the reasons why that evidence was not available to the defence before the trial.

We had a member on here many moons ago who would consistently give really bad advice. Because of the articulated way she wrote many believed her to be legally qualified. She's not. And people believed what she said, to their detriment....

People mean well when they advise - but sometimes if a person takes the wrong advice, it can mean the difference between a guilty and not guilty verdict.

[Jockc2330]

apologies' if i offended

I don't have the time to search now but I can tell you that I read JSUs (Judge's Summing Up) when reviewing paperwork for appeals against conviction. "Reasonable Doubt" has long since been left out of a judge's summing up.


Edit: Just did a quick search:

http://thejusticegap.com/2013/02/vic...e-jury-system/

Extract:





http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/research/b...sonable_doubt/

Extract:




https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...page&q&f=false


Go to point 3.3 Standards of Proof Degrees of Certainty and point 3.4 Operation of the Evidential Burden

I've been assisting at trials and appeals (and CCRC applications) since 2002, so for 13 years. I think I know what I'm talking about. When I don't I will say so, and take advice on it.

As I didn't mean to question your veracity or imply that you don't know what your talking about. I asked because my senior solicitor advised me that the burden of proof remained unchanged and made no mention of this change in summation.

I have read of cases sourced from BAILLI in which grounds for appeal were accepted based upon the trial Judges directions to the jury.

I appreciate your detailed and quick response.

Please accept my apologies.

Regards.

[Rights Fighter]

I don't have the time to search now but I can tell you that I read JSUs (Judge's Summing Up) when reviewing paperwork for appeals against conviction. "Reasonable Doubt" has long since been left out of a judge's summing up.


Edit: Just did a quick search:

http://thejusticegap.com/2013/02/vic...e-jury-system/

Extract:

Judges are expected to give juries explanations about all manner of things often far more complex than what is a meant by ‘reasonable doubt’. At a recent student event I had an animated discussion about whether the term ‘you must be sure’ which is more commonly used by judges these days rather than the old fashioned phrase ‘satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt’ imposes a higher test on the prosecution or whether in fact, as was certainly always intended by the judges who instituted the change, the two phrases mean the same thing.

http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/research/b...sonable_doubt/

Extract:

3. Juror-level factors

Finally jurors' attitudes were examined to see if persons with, for example, a prosecution bias adopt a lower interpretation of reasonable doubt, i.e. require a lower evidential threshold to find a defendant guilty. Attitudes were measured using the Juror Bias Scale (Kassin and Wrightman, 1984), Revised Legal Attitudes Questionnaire (RLAQ-23; Kravis, Cutler and Brock, 1993), Pre-trial Juror Bias Questionnaire (PJAQ; Lecci and Myers, 2008). While attitudes were important in predicting the case verdict, they did not predict how stringently the BRD instruction was interpreted.

Demographic differences were observed for jurors’ interpretation of BRD, as well as in their reported understanding of and confidence in applying the BRD standard. The differences occurred for the undefined version of the BRD, but not for the wording “sure” or “firmly convinced”. For the undefined version greater difficulties in understanding BRD and low confidence in applying it correctly were reported by people aged 30 or younger, women and persons without university education.

Overall this project showed that juror interpretations of BRD are affected by the wording of instructions, by demographic differences between jurors, and at least to a certain extent by case characteristics. However, they are not as much affected by case characteristics as could be feared, and are not influenced by juror attitudes found to be related to verdicts.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...page&q&f=false


Go to point 3.3 Standards of Proof Degrees of Certainty and point 3.4 Operation of the Evidential Burden

I've been assisting at trials and appeals (and CCRC applications) since 2002, so for 13 years. I think I know what I'm talking about. When I don't I will say so, and take advice on it.

[Jockc2330]

change in standrd of burden of proof?

Not any more. A jury only needs to be "sure". Reasonable doubt seems to have disappeared in the annals of time along with corroboration.

Can you send me a link which enacts this in Law? I am no doubting your assertion, however I would jut like clarification.

Either this is a statute shift in the standard of proof, or its a judicial direction.

If the former, I question the application, if the latter, I question whether that direction is not grounds for appeal?

Curious and concerned.

[Rights Fighter]

It's important to remember that the CPS use a different standard in deciding whether to charge than a jury do when deciding whether to convict. In the case of the CPS, if they think there is a 51% or greater chance of securing a conviction then they'll take it forward. A jury needs to be certain 'beyond a reasonable doubt', and that leaves you a lot of leeway for mounting a successful defence.
Even if they do charge that doesn't mean it will get as far as a court room. There's so many pre-trial hearings and meetings and so on where you have the opportunity to get it chucked out.

Best advice I can give you is to try and keep your mind occupied (I find computer games work for me), take plenty of exercise (does wonders for one's mindstate) and try and establish as normal a routine as possible. It'll always be there in the background but it will be much less powerful if you can take control of the other areas of your life.

Not any more. A jury only needs to be "sure". Reasonable doubt seems to have disappeared in the annals of time along with corroboration.

[heartbreaking]

His solicitor seems good.

I just worry. I've spent a few hours with him and he's told me some of the stuff he police asked him and it's awful.

Im live on my nerves all the time.

[StressedNE]

It's important to remember that the CPS use a different standard in deciding whether to charge than a jury do when deciding whether to convict. In the case of the CPS, if they think there is a 51% or greater chance of securing a conviction then they'll take it forward. A jury needs to be certain 'beyond a reasonable doubt', and that leaves you a lot of leeway for mounting a successful defence.
Even if they do charge that doesn't mean it will get as far as a court room. There's so many pre-trial hearings and meetings and so on where you have the opportunity to get it chucked out.

Best advice I can give you is to try and keep your mind occupied (I find computer games work for me), take plenty of exercise (does wonders for one's mindstate) and try and establish as normal a routine as possible. It'll always be there in the background but it will be much less powerful if you can take control of the other areas of your life.

[Rights Fighter]

Getting the right results is difficult but the most important thing is your choice of solicitor and barrister, should there be a charge.

You've arrived here at the right time - before conviction. Those who take note of other people's experiences on here, and on the other forum often tend to get the correct verdicts, as they are properly "advised" and take note of people's experiences who have had the NG verdicts.

[heartbreaking]

I panic all the time. I shake and I dread each day we are 6 weeks in and I actually feel worse than I did at the start.

[jittery]

hi

I'm struggling.does anyone come out on top in historic cases.
I've spent the last 24 hours looking for any hope and all I read is horror.

Don't read other stories, I did that on 3 or 4 occassions and had the worst days of my time in limbo! Don't forget, it's only news and worth publishing if there's a " result ", i.e. a guilty verdict. I'm sure there are many cases where there is a positive result for the falsely accused, they're just not worth reporting!

Stay strong!