- Re: Luke Mitchell - Wrongly Convicted of Murder 21 May, 2012Quote from: HaveHope on Yesterday at 12:26:21 pmQuote from: nugnug on May 20, 2012, 08:24:11 pmunless the police technicians got it terrible wrong with time all the texts were deleted after lukes pho... […]
- Re: Luke Mitchell - Wrongly Convicted of Murder 21 May, 2012yes aperntly jodi needed an escort in mi dell of the afternoon when it was daylight but not at night going home sounds rather strange. […]
- Re: Luke Mitchell - Wrongly Convicted of Murder 21 May, 2012Quote from: nugnug on Yesterday at 12:45:21 pmit certanly is well to my mind anyway.me too The prosecution claimed that when Luke called Jodi's home and spoke with AO,that was him putting his plan into action. :... […]
- Re: Luke Mitchell - Wrongly Convicted of Murder 21 May, 2012it certanly is well to my mind anyway. […]
HoC Justice Committee – Joint Enterprise
Joint Enterprise
Witnesses
i. Keir Starmer QC, Director of Public Prosecutions
ii. Jean Taylor and Christine Jones, Families Fighting for Justice
iii. Gloria Morrison and Dr Andrew Green, Joint Enterprise-Not Guilty by Association
Visit the Committee’s homepage.
3 Responses to HoC Justice Committee – Joint Enterprise
Leave a Reply
Registered CharityNo. SC041953
Why does Mr Starmer stutter.He doesnt seem confident in what he is saying.He uses the words “not sure” and “I think”.He should be 100% sure about what he is talking about
Keir Starmer QC.
Keir Starmer claims that there is little difference from a legal prospective in the consideration of laying charges, whether a gang of a group?
By inference Mr Starmer’s must be suggesting that point is superfluous?
If we are dealing with a murder and a suspect is on the outer fringe of culpability, isn’t that information vital in deciding whether to prosecute, and prosecute with what? It has been suggested by another that the police would know if they were part of a gang? A murder conviction for the police officers involved is without question a major feather in their cap, and promotional ambitions are often a driving force in their actions. “Proof of Gang Membership Madam”, not the police’s opinions based on the former (or informer)
David Cameron was wrong about gangs being responsible for the London riots. That claim was made before any facts were available; “Gang phobia” appears to have been blown out of all proportion. Statistically Murders are dropping, and have been dropping for some time.
Individuals who make no statements in the police station, is that misguided gang loyalty?
The vast majority (but not all) are merely doing what their solicitor told them to do; wouldn’t you think long and hard about ignoring hisher advice? If you take the stereotypical advice to say nothing, the chances of claiming you are part of a gang increases. Are you sure this is a gang? The typical line is “we look at each individual case very carefully indeed “
No they don’t that is rubbish!
Mr Starmer never did answer the question about how you define a gang, did he?
Typically, criminal Law firms are not wholly autonomous in their practises. It is common practice to use other local law firms to cover shortfalls in ones existing resources, particularly in joint criminal enterprises where sometimes many clients need immediate representation. It is common currency for a local law firm to utilise arrangements that divide the spoils, and should a murder charge follow the law firm will benefit from the work generated. Taking advantage of the lower pay rates of “Accredited Police Station Representatives “profit yield is increased. The client is rarely aware of their representative’s lower status, because they have merely been introduced to them as their legal representative. Because of the complicated and beneficial relationship between the various law firms representing the lesser A.P.S.R will often take their leave from other solicitors present and also through phone conversations to their superiors. It would seem extremely naïve to assert these considerations have no bearing on advice tendered to the client. Opinions vary but the consensus appears from my experience to be that you are more likely to be charged if you make no statement to the police. If you are charged the law firm representing you stands to benefit considerably from the work generated.
Going back to 2003,( Criminal Justice Act 2003)the criminal law underwent a defining change in the very calibration of justice. Hearsay allowed trial without a jury, allowed to hear previous convictions, double jeopardy, and inference from making no statement. Some qualifications to the previously mentioned noted, but very little.
Those legislative changes, which you are no doubt aware of, tipped the balance greatly in favour of the prosecution. To the best of my knowledge, no studies have been commissioned to ascertain the effect of those changes, specifically, in relation to miscarriages of justice.
The Chan Wing Su principle “alone” stands to convict the remotest of parties, and cruelly denies fair minded justice. (This case law is of real concern)
Taking just these very few points into account, can the jury who we put our faith in be blinded?
Phonological studies say “YES”
http://sgspsychology2.webs.com/persuadingajury.htm
In the 1980’s Thatcher took on the problem of football hooligans, she did rather well.
In today’s society wouldn’t those same hooligans be called “GANGS”
If we broaden the term “GANGS” we perpetuate our own perception of an increasing problem, regardless of reality. The irony being we could also produce statistics to back up those assertions, because of the dynamics previously mentioned.
ONLY WITH A FAIR HEART CAN YOU JUDGE ANOTHER.
AMOUNGST THE RICH AND POWERFUL IF THAT PERSON EXISTS:
“NOW IS THE TIME TO STEP FORWARD”