Yet another massive miscarriage of justice; how often does this have to happen before someone wakes up and does something about it?

I can confirm from personal experience - the judicial and legal process in this country (and I suspect around the world) is riddled with holes, incompetence, corruption and malice.

In Andrew's case, thank God for honest jurors who dared speak out.

I wonder how the jurors in my trial would consider my conviction now they know I was on another continent at the time.

I don't know how it can done fairly but I do feel that Jurors not being able to comment on their deliberations outside the Jury room is problem.

There was one case I heard of where the defendant had two cannabis plants. he claimed he didn't know what they were. The Juror, who I know, didn't think even if they did know it was a terrible problem anyway. They put that to one side and still found they were unconvinced a guilty verdict was 100%.

In the event they were the only dissenter so conceded. When the defendant's previous was announced there was a single previous conviction which caused that Juror to think - that's why you wanted him done.

It was an experience they found over-all difficult and troubling.

As Jurors have no experience of the job they are doing they can have no perspective.

I had some cannabis plants in my garden. They grew from fallen bird seed - from hanging bird feeders. I didn't even notice them until someone pointed them out, and it made me wonder how many other gardens have cannabis lurking innocently among the veg.

One main problem I find with the British legal system is that, quite often, the jury are not given absolutely all the facts. There is a game being played between opposing lawyers, with the main aim being victory rather than truth. The rules of the game do not allow for factual evidence, not produced during the trial, to be considered afterwards, no matter how crucial or indesputable it may be. I know of one defence barrister who closed his case while witnesses were still waiting to testify and vital material evidence remained unused. His client was found guilty, and I found it very alarming.

Perhaps if a judge was to ask, as a matter of routine after all presentations have been made, if the defendant was satisfied or has anything else he'd like to add, then maybe this kind of situation can be avoided. The defendant is, after all, inocent until a guilty verdict is delevered. Alternatively they could adopt the American practice of allowing the defendant to sit next to his lawyer so there can be better communication.

you prove you CANNOT have committed the crimes as charged and, after ALL your evidence has been completed and the trial basically over, the prosecution asks, and is granted, to change the dates on 4 of the 6 counts (that is what happened to me, in one case making the alleged 12 year old 15 or 16)?

I protested vehementally to my expensive QC (you don't buy a dog and bark yourself) and he says it is "standard judicial practice".

So you assume the judge will point out to the jury that they have heard no defence evidence for the new, later time frames.

He doesn't.

So you assume the jury will think "without any evidence, for or against the fresh dates, we MUST acquit".

They don't. They take 3 days (probably being very confused by this) and convict.

Four years later, after being released and at last able to examine my diaries and papers, I find I was in America during one of the fresh time periods.

I tell you what happens.

You lose all faith in British justice and write lyrics like Professional Victims and Plead Guilty.

Yes you'll find Warren features large in my Professional Victims video.