www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/8494860....s_for_Colerne_woman/

So despite being convicted - and despite CCTV evidence clearly showing this THUG beating up this woman ( the second time he has done this in his career ) there is now a RETRIAL.

This just shows the way in which the CRIMINALS IN THE POLICE run the system.

They are BEYOND the law. They are in charge of the courts.

This is the reason WHY the National Press are not covering this shocking story.

He can now argue that he cant have a fair trial - because the BBC showed an interview with the VICTIM after the first verdict. This is a classic stitch up of the legal system BY those that run it.

He will now get off on techicalities like the TOMLINSON police killer.

Stinks.

Not sure what will happen in the re-trial but he does have the right to appeal.

In most cases people get a reduced sentence..ocassionally an increase.

No Veritas - he has won a RE-TRIAL !

This is not an appeal against Sentence.

He appealed the conviction and won.

Really annoys me that this bully is still being paid!

BR wrote:
No Veritas - he has won a RE-TRIAL !

This is not an appeal against Sentence.

He appealed the conviction and won.

oh OK a re-trial. But presumably his barrister presented a pretty good case for a re-trial and it is a judge(s) that decides if that happens. All on points of law I suppose.

Thanks Veritas, you write:

"[P]resumably his barrister presented a pretty good case for a re-trial and it is a judge(s) that decides if that happens. All on points of law I suppose."

This is a reasonable hope, but I would want the details so I can judge for myself, and the article doesn't provide them.

Best Wishes,
Jim

Jim wrote:
Thanks Veritas, you write:

"[P]resumably his barrister presented a pretty good case for a re-trial and it is a judge(s) that decides if that happens. All on points of law I suppose."

This is a reasonable hope, but I would want the details so I can judge for myself, and the article doesn't provide them.

Best Wishes,
Jim

Hi Jim-not supporting the accused, just the process of law.

Although it may seem harsh he is still on full pay etc that doesn;t seem a problem to me.

I have sympathy for the woman as any appearance in a court is highly stressful.

Thanks Veritas, you write:

"not supporting the accused, just the process of law"

Agreed. But part of the process of law is that it should be open. That's why I'd like to know the details.

Best Wishes,
Jim

Jim wrote:
But part of the process of law is that it should be open. That's why I'd like to know the details.

I'd like to know too. The case seemed a fairly simple one, so the point of law upon which the appeal is based is not immediately apparent.

SJB wrote:
Jim wrote:
But part of the process of law is that it should be open. That's why I'd like to know the details.

I'd like to know too. The case seemed a fairly simple one, so the point of law upon which the appeal is based is not immediately apparent.

quite right but the only way would be to view the trial transcript.

In fact the report is entirely inadequate and I bet the reporter wasn't even there.

I often sit in on senstational cases just to watch the theatre but points of law made by barrister sare quite fascinating.

We are beholden to a shrinking corporatised media that feeds us the mundane.

Politicians have abandoned the notion of holding the media to account. They are given an extraordinary freedom and power yet no demands of responsibility are demanded by our leaders.