And about bloody time.
Could it be that there may be a genuine, valid court in Britain?
Perhaps they could consider whether convicting a man of a crime that took place whilst he was on another continent is impossible, let alone inaccurate?

Sorry JK...you've lost me there

I was convicted of crimes I could not have committed as I was on a different continent at the time.

I suspect Martha was being mischievous.

Martha and her friends on the same IP are always mischievous.

JK2006 wrote:
I was convicted of crimes I could not have committed as I was on a different continent at the time.

Without knowing the full facts of your case, I would however suggest that the following is true when considering 'one on one' crime.

If lawyers can prove to a court - by providing clear evidence (passport records, airline and hotel receipts, photographs, witness statements etc.) - that an accused was elsewhere when a crime was committed, acquital can be the only outcome.

Of this, there can be little doubt - assuming that the court is bona fide, acting in good faith and in accordance with the law.

Not when they change the dates on the charges after your defence has completed and don't allow you time to discover or present an alibi for the new, later time frame (see Vile Pervert; The Musical).

With me they're trying to spread the time over 3 years,including a period before I'd even met the person.
What they really want is to do away with dates,and just say a crime was comitted,but not when it was suppossed to happen.

Recipe for disaster,and a charter for low life false accusers.

I think you might find Archbold says something about that IA; I strongly suspect there HAS to be dates and they cannot be longer than one year. I also think you may find the ECHR case Mattoccia vs Italy could be useful.

It is not uncommon for the CPS to create a wide period of time in which an offence might have been committed. With a care worker, as in many of the trawling cases, it may be claimed that at some point between (e.g.) 01 Jan 2001 and 31 Dec 2003 they committed an assault, even if only one assault is alleged to have taken place. This is permissible even though it is very vague. A genuine victim would at least be able to say what time of what year, for example at the beginning of 2002, the assault took place. The wide time frame allows for mistakes in memory. which in turn suggests a certain unreliability of the witness. It also makes it difficult for the accused to find an alibi defence, thus increasing the chances of conviction. It is always more about securing a conviction than establishing the truth.

My brief thinks it's legal,but still 5 months away,a lot could happen.

Martha wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
I was convicted of crimes I could not have committed as I was on a different continent at the time.

Without knowing the full facts of your case, I would however suggest that the following is true when considering 'one on one' crime.

If lawyers can prove to a court - by providing clear evidence (passport records, airline and hotel receipts, photographs, witness statements etc.) - that an accused was elsewhere when a crime was committed, acquital can be the only outcome.

Of this, there can be little doubt - assuming that the court is bona fide, acting in good faith and in accordance with the law.



Oh Martha surely you are being a tad naive ! I wish I had your faith in the law and it's outcome.

How do you account for the number of innocents being released after years of being banged up ?

It's happened here in Oz yet again..a 70 year old Catholic priest arrested and locked up without bail for historic abuse. 3 weeks in the pokey before his lawyer could finally track down Vatican records to show the man was in Italy for 3 years and had never travelled outside there whilst he was studying. But all the tabloid ingredients were there..alleged child abuse, the church and so on. The poor man didn't even remember himself where he was 35 years ago he was in such a state.
And he hasn't even received an apology.

The law changed in 2003,now you can only get what evidence the CPS thinks will be helpful.Who decides this you wonder? Yes of course the CPS
How many abusess of the law does this secrecy hide? We only hear about cases aquitted later on when hidden evidence is exposed.What about those whose evidence stays hidden?
All evidence should be shaared,and all evidence should be admissable,for both sides.
Labour wanted more sex convictions so as to look good on crime,but it's getting them by lowering the burden of proof.Hardly the best way to jail real criminals!

Simple fact is serious miscarriages of justice like the 'Bridgewater 4' would not be found out now under this badge of secrecy