Two arrests - Justice for Stephen Lawrence?

LondonJohn said:
One of the ongoing anomalies of the law enforcement system is that it's perfectly lawful for the police to carry on any investigation they see fit, for as long as they like, provided they do not employ tactics such as surveillance, wiretapping, postal/internet interception etc, which require justification and senior-level authorisation or court orders. Technically, there's nothing whatsoever - outside of budgetary or political considerations - to prevent the police from carrying on an ongoing investigation into the Acourt brothers, Sion Jenkins, Fhimah, the Guildford Four, or anyone whatsoever for that matter. This could involve questioning of the individuals (although not under compulsion), questioning of friends/colleagues/family (likewise, not compulsory), monitoring of addresses, known associates, affiliations etc.
Click to expand...


It doesn't even need to get to the point of charging someone. Look at what's being done to Lamin Fhimah at the moment. The poor guy is reportedly terrified, and that just on some press reports of what Mulholland has been saying.

Rolfe.
 
LondonJohn said:
Therefore, although the LA in Scotland may express a desire to see a certain individual re-prosecuted, is it actually his decision whether or not such a re-prosecution takes place? If so, then the role of LA seriously needs reform - it's totally unacceptable for someone with executive/legislative power to be the party bringing prosecutions against private individuals or private corporations.
Click to expand...


You may be interested in this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Advocate#Calls_for_reform

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
It's different because the police behaved properly. Go back and look at what happened to Sion Jenkins, paying particular attention to the input of David Southall.

Jenkins was actually convicted. But if he had been acquitted, as he should have been? This is an engraved invitation for the prosecuting authorities to make someone's life hell forever more in that situation.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...


True. But I'd argue that Jenkins' case was a rare anomaly, and that there were some reasons to suggest his culpability (although I'd readily agree that there should never have been enough to bring the case to trial, far less for a jury to acquit beyond a reasonable doubt). As with so many wrongful convictions, it's extremely likely that the jurors had been tainted by the massive publicity, the emotive nature of the crime (in this case, the murder of a child, and the truly dreadful thought of a foster father being responsible), and the public clamour to "bring someone to justice" over the crime.

At least in Jenkins' case, the final safety net - the Court of Appeal - did its job reasonably quickly and effectively.
 
Quickly??? Effectively?????? Do you know how many times that case was before the court before he was eventually acquitted?

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
You may be interested in this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Advocate#Calls_for_reform

Rolfe.
Click to expand...


Very interesting, and exactly in line with my argument on separation of powers. It's hard to understand why these changes aren't being expedited - although one need only look at the comparable situation in the England/Wales system and the glacial pace of change there to see how long these things can take.

Frankly, I am astonished - in the cases of both England/Wales and Scotland - that this clear anomaly was not addressed and corrected decades - if not centuries - ago. In both instances, there was (and is, in the case of Scotland) a blatant breach of a fundamental rule of democracy, which seemingly went either unnoticed or unchallenged for a very, very long time.
 
Is it any wonder I'm less than enchanted with a lot of what is going on?

Actually, it looks as if reform of the role of the LA was part of the Calman submissions. The Calman bill is about to get turned down by Holyrood for completely unrelated reasons.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
Quickly??? Effectively?????? Do you know how many times that case was before the court before he was eventually acquitted?

Rolfe.
Click to expand...


He was successful in his second appeal, right? IIRC, he first appealed very quickly after his conviction - a tactic which is almost bound to result in failure. I think his second successful appeal came some six years after his original conviction, and that he was immediately released on bail pending a retrial (in which he was acquitted).

I use the word "relatively" in comparison to other infamous appeal cases such as the Guildford 4, B'ham 6 or Bridgewater 4, all of whom had to wait for decades and endure multiple unsuccessful appeals (even when there were clear grounds for an appeal to succeed) before finally winning their appeals.
 
I lost count. There were two re-trials and several appeals in the Jenkins case. I could look it up....

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Yes, the second appeal ordered a retrial. 2 successive juries were unable to reach a majority verdict and he was acquitted after the CPS indicated they would not seek a firther retrial.
 
That sounds about right. The appeal court overturned the conviction at the second time of asking, but they still wouldn't give it up. Twice more they tried him, even though the evidence was ridiculous. One more to chalk down to that charlaten Southall I suppose.

I think it's all the evidence we can see of vicious pursuit of pretty clearly innocent people who have been convicted, that makes me reluctant to allow these same guys a free run at anyone they like also after they've been acquitted.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
So was Sion Jenkins, and he wasn't so lucky. Nor was he lucky enough to have jurors like you and your colleague. Far too many people believe the cops wouldn't prosecute someone if they hadn't done it.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

True, and I used to think that everyone was a skeptic about the police, certainly got my eyes opened on that one.

I think Scotland has a lot to answer for at the moment, per your earlier post. Even though you said England went though a similar phase, we should have learned from what happened down there and not sat back thinking we had no need to clean our own cupboards.

I realise Mulholland is a political appointee, so I find it odd that I can't find any statement about his 'investigations',from Alex Salmond, neither the SNP nor Scottish Governments websites. I'm even coming up a blank on the newspapers. Have I missed something?

Sadly we aren't likely to get rid of Mulholland soon because the shambles of the opposition parties will probably keep Salmond in a job.
 
First that bitch Angiolini, now Mulholland. I don't know what Salmond is thinking of.

We've a better chance of cleaning house in an independent Scotland, I think.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
First that bitch Angiolini, now Mulholland. I don't know what Salmond is thinking of.

We've a better chance of cleaning house in an independent Scotland, I think.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...


You're welcome to it - just don't ask for any of the oil/gas revenues though :D

Anyhow, back to the topic in hand, I see that the Attorney General is responding to a complaint by "a member of the public" (Doreen Lawrence, perchance?) about the sentences of Norris and Dobson. He must consider whether there's any merit to referring the sentences to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration. Therefore, he has no authority to modify the sentences - or even to petition for a modification of the sentences. He merely decides whether Appeal Court judges will decide whether the sentences are correct and fair.

It's also worth pointing out that the Attorney General gets a large number of requests to investigate sentences every year: his office is duty-bound to investigate if even one member of the public asks him to do so. However, only in a small proportion of those cases does he agree to send the case to the Court of Appeal, and only a small proportion of those cases result in a modified sentence. So the probability of Norris/Dobson actually having their sentences altered at this stage in the proceedings is actually very low indeed (although you wouldn't guess that from observing the way the media have latched onto this news).

FWIW, Norris and Dobson were both sentenced entirely in line with sentencing guidelines as they would have applied in 1993 to juveniles convicted in an adult court of murder with aggravating circumstances. My personal view therefore is that there is virtually no chance of their sentences being altered.
 
For what it's worth, I'm inclined to agree with you. Sometimes you have to decide to move on with what you've achieved.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
First that bitch Angiolini, now Mulholland. I don't know what Salmond is thinking of.

We've a better chance of cleaning house in an independent Scotland, I think.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Not sure about that one. I certainly walked through the 'no' corridor in 1707 to vote on the Act of Union (in a promenade theatre performance of Scotland's Hstory at The Tramway in the 1990's) but now we are together I see no point in splitting, especially as we have more control over ourselves now. The English should have their own government too, to avoid 'the midlothian question' and give them equality, with London remaining as the overall UK parliament. Many of the countries that have split into smaller units seem to have lost the authority they had as a group. While some needed to split to keep the peace, I think we manage to rub along ok with 'The Auld Enemy'. ;)

Of course, if there's a Thatcher II I'll probably regret these words :eek: As Frankie Boyle said: Instead of paying the planned £1m for Thatcher's funeral, just buy everyone in Scotland a shovel and we'll dig a hole so deep that we can hand her over to Satan personally :D
 
The trouble is, Scotland within the union has no mandate to dictate terms. We can demand devo-max or an English parliament till we're blue in the face, but we can't do anything to get them. They can only be delivered by Westminster, and 59 Scottish MPs cannot do anything to make Westminster stand and deliver.

As things stand, Westminster can decide to return any issue it likes to reserved status, from planning (if that's being used to block nuclear waste dumps) to green energy policy. It can impose detrimental financial settlements on Scotland (like the current Calman proposals), and basically thwart any Holyrood initiative it likes, if it thinks the natives are getting too uppity.

Talking of Thatcher, the Labour party is making it abundantly clear that they would prefer Scotland to be ruled by the Tories in perpetuity to an independent socialist government in Holyrood.

The only thing that concentrates the Westminster minds is the perception that if they do all that too crassly or too insensitively, they might be fuelling the desire for independence. If we roll over and say, no, no we really aren't going to go for independence, they'll do what they like.

At the moment there are a lot of things that need sorting out, and the criminal justice system is a biggie. But playing politics (Supreme Court, anyone?) gets in the way so long as strategising for independence is the priority. It's certainly one of the things that would be relatively easy to do in the "early days of a better nation".

And just show me one of the countries in Europe who have gained their independence in the past 100 years who would get a vote for reuniting with the old parent country that made it into double figures. I for one don't want the sort of authority that charges into illegal wars in Iraq, or when the POTUS says "jump", replies "how high?". I want the sort of authority that can speak up for Scotland's fishermen in Europe, and not horse-trade them away for concessions for London financiers.

But that's all a bit off topic. Maybe the change in legislation got a good result with the Lawrence case. But I'd still like to hear from Americans about this. Would countries that still have a prohibition on double jeopardy be comfortable going down this road?

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
<snip good points>
Talking of Thatcher, the Labour party is making it abundantly clear that they would prefer Scotland to be ruled by the Tories in perpetuity to an independent socialist government in Holyrood.

<snip more good points>
Rolfe.
Click to expand...

I'm confused with the SNP, they used to be tartan Tories and I don't like Salmond much, but they've done some good things and the opposition is useless. After MacAskill's very dignified speech releasing al-Megrahi I'd even have voted for him to be in charge.

And getting back on topic....

As you say, the legal system is becoming mince, our reputation is shot and Salmond really needs to make it clear if he is supporting Mulholland or not re Fhimah.

If he is then the govt are already spitting on the double jeopardy rule and would probably do it again, if not he should replace Mulholland, and regardless of either option he needs to split off some of the LA's powers.
 
LondonJohn said:
I see that the Attorney General is responding to a complaint by "a member of the public" (Doreen Lawrence, perchance?) about the sentences of Norris and Dobson. He must consider whether there's any merit to referring the sentences to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration. Therefore, he has no authority to modify the sentences - or even to petition for a modification of the sentences. He merely decides whether Appeal Court judges will decide whether the sentences are correct and fair.
Click to expand...

The news report I heard, said the request was from a person unconnected with the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom