admin
Member's Home Page
449 Posts
Member Since
08/04/2009 08:00:00
POST DATE
27/05/2009 22:29:51 |
Following the publication of my last article, it seemed appropriate to follow it up with an opinion poll regarding the issue of disclosure of evidence. For those who have not yet read it, you can find it here, Disclosure of evidence and denial of it in terms of the Human Rights Convention..
There are many issues which are not covered by the article which progress the need for compulsory disclosure of all evidence even further. In the COPFS book of regulations Chapter 2, paragraph 2.20.1 there is reference to and quotation from Lord Justice-General Rodger who said "the crown will respond to specific requests from the defence for information or for the production of statements or other items where the defence can explain why they would be material to the defence." and Lord Hamilton who says "The Crown does not in the investigation or prosecution of crime adopt a partisan attitude. It has an interest and a responsibility to secure, insofar as within its power, as much the acquittal of the innocent as the conviction of the guilty.". Here we have two Lord's who draw attention to the responsibility of the prosecution to disclose evidence.
And in paragraph 2.20.5 "The underlying principle in such matters is that the Procurator Fiscal must never act unfairly.", clearly withholding evidence from a defence is unfair and hence contradicts the COPFS's own book of regulations.
The Joint Protocol between Association Of Chief Police Officers In Scotland (ACPOS) and Crown Office And Procurator Fiscal Services (COPFS) provides time limits where by "Full Statements" must be provided to the defence. (Full statements is defined as ALL statements of ALL witnesses whether or not listed in the Standard Prosecution Report).
The Freedom of information act states that information must be released to anyone with a reasonable interest in obtaining it unless the release of it would prejudice a persons right to a fair trial. There can be no person with a greater reason of interest than the accused or his/her defence team and there is no reference within the FOISA which states that information must be retained to ensure an unfair trial.
It is also important to note that details from within my article on the subject and those above demonstrate that disclosure of evidence is to a certain extent already mandatory but the practice of disclosure dose not reflect that. Non-disclosure certainly can lead to a person being wrongly convicted and also provide a legal technicality for a genuine criminal to escape prosecution. I think the case for what is already technically mandatory to become officially compulsory with penalties enforced on anyone who fails to comply has been sufficiently shown and would urge you to vote yes in favour of it.
edited by admin on 27/05/2009
|
|
|
Judge Dread
71 Posts
Member Since
21/04/2009 20:12:36
POST DATE
27/05/2009 23:05:28 |
Another topic which gets my vote Billy. Keep up the good work. I follow the site with interest and am extremely impressed with your efforts to help make our Justice system fairer for all.
|
|
The one who removes a mountain begins by carrying away small stones!
|
stingray
46 Posts
Member Since
16/04/2009 11:29:24
POST DATE
27/05/2009 23:12:32 |
I too have voted a big YES on this one. I was going to end the evening finishing off Sandra Lean's book but some vulture swooped and its gone. Anyone got a spare copy?
|
|
From little acorns doth mighty Oaks grow.
|
jane2452
89 Posts
Member Since
16/04/2009 02:42:47
POST DATE
28/05/2009 07:34:08 |
I'd say things would seem slightly dodgy to say the least if full disclosure was denied. A definate yes from me
|
|
Live and let live
|
bigsis
Member's Home Page
52 Posts
Member Since
29/04/2009 21:18:57
POST DATE
28/05/2009 09:19:04 |
Its a definate yes from me, full disclosure of evidence should be compulsory, without it there can't be a fair trial
edited by bigsis on 28/05/2009
|
|
All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.
|
Billys Ma N Pa
Member's Home Page
18 Posts
Member Since
10/05/2009 17:51:54
POST DATE
28/05/2009 22:22:35 |
Its a definate yes from us. Full disclosure is vital.
|
|
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Martin Luther King Jr.
|
Billysis
Member's Home Page
25 Posts
Member Since
28/04/2009 14:23:53
POST DATE
30/05/2009 22:12:28 |
I must admit I assumed it must be compulsory already
|
|
|
admin
Member's Home Page
449 Posts
Member Since
08/04/2009 08:00:00
POST DATE
06/06/2009 18:04:42 |
There are procedure regarding the disclosure of evidence in place yes but they are not followed and never will be if those responsible for not observing them are never held to account. This is a circumstance that is present from the very top of the chain, starting at government level which is why we have started a petition regarding the misconduct of current justice ministers along with all others who have mislead the British public in relation to it.
Please sign the petition which can be found and the following link and pass the web address on to anyone you know who has an interest in the issue. Personally I think everyone does since the seriousness of these failures results in the safety of the public as a whole not being properly protected.
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/holding-ministers-of-parliament-to-account.html
|
|
|
|
UNIQUE VISITORS
FEATURED BOOK: Sandra Lean's 'No smoke, The Shocking Truth About The British Justice System'(To see all 15 5-star reveiws check 'No Smoke' as well as the full title, it is listed under both.)
|
