to get a conviction overturned years after been sentenced for it?
I know someone who was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment five years ago. He pleaded not guilty to it and had a trial in the magistrates court and was basically found guilty on the say so of a witness who was a friend of the 'victim' and there was talk at the time of getting compensation (though i gather that in the end the magistrate made no compensation order).
He has always maintained his innocence and felt that his soliciter was basically a waste of time.
I dont know the full details but he says that he pushed somone over but they fabricated on it and said that they were punched and kicked. There was no hospital treament needed and no photos of any injuries, he was jailed on the say so of the 'witness'. He was advised not to appeal because he was drunk at the time and because he was in breach of a conditional discharge.
He is still resentful 5 years later. Can he still appeal and if so what is the process?
tia...
wizard66 Mon 19/05/08 22:29
To subscribe to this question you need to
sign in to the AnswerBank or register
if you are not already a member. All you need is a valid email address to register.
|
|
No he cannot.
Notification of appeal against conviction in a magistrates court has to be lodged within 21 days, so he's slightly out of time.
|
|
|
Question Author
is there a time limit in crown court then?
Birmingham 6 etc?
Thanks for your speedy reply btw.
|
|
|
Question Author
so if someone was (wrongley) convicted in a magistrates court and then badly advised, they have to suffer the consequences for the rest of their lives?
seems a bit bizare to me.
|
|
|
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
|
|
|
No they don't, wizard. The right of appeal is there, but not forever. Perhaps it may help if I explain what would have happened in the event of an appeal.
The appeal would be heard in the Crown Court before a panel of three, two magistrates (from a different Bench to that which provided the original conviction) and a Crown Court judge. No jury is involved and each of the three members of the panel has an equal say in the outcome (that is, the judge cannot overrule the magistrates if he disagrees with their findings).
In effect the original trial would be heard again with the same witnesses from each side. No new evidence is allowed. So there is a strong likelihood of the same outcome.
In a criminal trial there are always two versions of events. One of them may be true (though often neither of them demonstrates the complete truth). A heavy burden of proof rests with the prosecution. They have to prove the matter “beyond reasonable doubt”. If there is any reasonable doubt the benefit goes to the defendant and he should be acquitted. Magistrates are advised on points of law by their legal advisor in their court and would be similarly advised by the judge at the Crown Court. So the issue for them is to decide which version of events they prefer. Magistrates have to state in open court when delivering their verdict, why they arrived at their decision (i.e. who they believed and who they did not).
Grounds for appeal are limited and verdicts are not often overturned simply because the decision went against the defendant.
It is regrettable that your friend was perhaps badly advised. He should not have declined to appeal simply because he was drunk or in breach of a CD. If he thought the evidence had been misinterpreted by the magistrates the right of appeal was open to him. Not now though. It is simply too late and he will indeed have to live with it.
|
|
|
can't cases be reopened when new evidence comes to light? Or am I thinking of American TV shows?
|
|
|
jno - I believe you are thinking of the modification to the "double jeopardy" rule whereby an acquittal was final: the defendant could not be put in jeopardy again by being tried a second time. Part 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which took effect in 2005, gives the Court of Appeal power to quash an acquittal and order a retrial for certain serious offences based on "new and compelling evidence against the acquitted person".
|
|
|
Retrials after a failed appeal are instigated by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, as per my link above.
The CCRC reviews possible miscarriages of justice and decides if they should be referred to an appeal court.
"Our main job is to review the cases of those that feel they have been wrongly convicted of criminal offences, or unfairly sentenced."
I suspect that feeling "wrongly convicted... or unfairly sentenced" for non-spectacular cases must manifest itself within the 21/28 day timescales originally mentioned.
|
|
|
Question Author
As ive stated, the person in question was wrongly convicted but he was (in retrospect) also wrongly advised.
At the time it was put to him that he didnt stand a chance of appeal (put to him by a soliciter that did practically nothing for him in court) and that if he just kept his head down he would be out in a matter of weeks (on a tag) At the time it was maybe the best option but years later it eats at him that he has served time for something which he hadnt done and theres jack sh!t he can do about it. If he had a different soliciter ...a competant one...he is sure that he wouldnt even have been convicted and if he had then he would have at least not been put off appealing.
Thanks for all of your replies...
|
|
