Wheelchair/Disability Friendly Holiday...
Travel5 mins ago
Stephen Lawrence Programme
I am not sure if this is in the right place, but I'm sure it will be in the news today. Do you think the Lawrence 5 should be trialed again? And can they be under the new law if someone provides new evidence?
How can so many coincidences take place and they still be found not guilty and all the blunders aided by a bent policeman, It makes my blood boil.
How can so many coincidences take place and they still be found not guilty and all the blunders aided by a bent policeman, It makes my blood boil.
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by madham. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I didnt watch all of it and not to aware of all the info. They are certainly a nasty bunch of individuals. The only thing that cast doubt in my mind was when the police planted the hidden camera in the electrical plug, put them under surveillance for hours and not once did they make any reference to the murder. By the racist remarks they made and the things they were doing with the knifes gave me the impression they had no idea they were being filmed (unless they are very clever and 'playing a game')
It's complicated but my reading is that the offence is a qualifying offence but the police would need to gain consent from the Director of Puplic Prosecutions.
They'd need to show "new and compelling evidence"
New basically means evidence not submitted at the original trial.
Compelling is defined as (a) reliable, (b) substantial, and (c) in the context of the issues in dispute at the trial, it appears highly probative of the prosecution case against the acquitted person.
There's also some stuff about it being in the interests of justice and the public interest.
The requirements are all here if you're interested.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section19/chapter_ j.html
They'd need to show "new and compelling evidence"
New basically means evidence not submitted at the original trial.
Compelling is defined as (a) reliable, (b) substantial, and (c) in the context of the issues in dispute at the trial, it appears highly probative of the prosecution case against the acquitted person.
There's also some stuff about it being in the interests of justice and the public interest.
The requirements are all here if you're interested.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section19/chapter_ j.html
Booldawg - It makes me think because they didn't talk about it in general, the whole community must have known about the incidient so the fact they didn't mention it at all, not in a confessional way just generally seems suspicious.
Wowo - there was lots of descrepencies with the alibi's as well as witnesses who saw them when they say they were at home, even one of the mothers said he was out and he said he was home.
Just have to see what happens with them. Too many coincidences
Wowo - there was lots of descrepencies with the alibi's as well as witnesses who saw them when they say they were at home, even one of the mothers said he was out and he said he was home.
Just have to see what happens with them. Too many coincidences
I think it's a shame the family received what appears to have been poor legal advice.
Even Imran Khan admits he let them down - I appreciate that the only exact science is hindsight, but legal experts should know how much scrutiny evidnce is put under and how people are quized for huge amounts of time about split second actions and observations. If it hadn't been for the private prosecution then it may be that evidence would now be enough for the CPS to feels there was a good chance of a successful prosecution.
As for no evidence against them at all, my understanding is that there is some evidence but that it has been shown to be enough to prove - or disprove - their involvement, and they're not willing to give any answers in person before a jury - they only gave evidence at the poublic enquiry when they were given a guarantee that they wouldn't be asked anything that could lead them to incriminate themselves.
If they are innocent - and at the moment they have yet to be proved guilty - then why won't they give evidence to defend themselves - even in a civil court as invited by the Daily Mail where the burden of proof is different.
Having said that, every time a new campaign against them is started, or a new documentary, or even (and this is no critisism of the family) every time the Lawrence family are drawn into a discussion about them, they are more and more likely to be able to argue that they won't get a fair trial. It's a balance between freedom of speech and responsible journalism.
Even Imran Khan admits he let them down - I appreciate that the only exact science is hindsight, but legal experts should know how much scrutiny evidnce is put under and how people are quized for huge amounts of time about split second actions and observations. If it hadn't been for the private prosecution then it may be that evidence would now be enough for the CPS to feels there was a good chance of a successful prosecution.
As for no evidence against them at all, my understanding is that there is some evidence but that it has been shown to be enough to prove - or disprove - their involvement, and they're not willing to give any answers in person before a jury - they only gave evidence at the poublic enquiry when they were given a guarantee that they wouldn't be asked anything that could lead them to incriminate themselves.
If they are innocent - and at the moment they have yet to be proved guilty - then why won't they give evidence to defend themselves - even in a civil court as invited by the Daily Mail where the burden of proof is different.
Having said that, every time a new campaign against them is started, or a new documentary, or even (and this is no critisism of the family) every time the Lawrence family are drawn into a discussion about them, they are more and more likely to be able to argue that they won't get a fair trial. It's a balance between freedom of speech and responsible journalism.
madham - Can you tell me exactly what your movements were on 22 April 1993.
As I said before there is no solid reliable, physical or circumstantial evidence against them. Even if they all now came out and said that they were all walking the streets that night it wouldn't make any difference in terms of them being convicted for the murder. Only one of the 5 movements have been brought into question (and even that's hardly compelling) and there were 5 people involved.
As I said before there is no solid reliable, physical or circumstantial evidence against them. Even if they all now came out and said that they were all walking the streets that night it wouldn't make any difference in terms of them being convicted for the murder. Only one of the 5 movements have been brought into question (and even that's hardly compelling) and there were 5 people involved.
I think the issue was that they were worried anything that they said in the public enquiry could then have been used in evidence in a criminal trial.
They got a high court injuction preventing them being asked any questions at the public enquiry that could have incriminated them. Only then did they agree to speak at the public enquiry. It seems a bit odd.
However, the constant public speculation means that there would be a strong argument that they wouldn't receive a fair trial because the jury might be influenced by the press coverage.
They got a high court injuction preventing them being asked any questions at the public enquiry that could have incriminated them. Only then did they agree to speak at the public enquiry. It seems a bit odd.
However, the constant public speculation means that there would be a strong argument that they wouldn't receive a fair trial because the jury might be influenced by the press coverage.
Jake has identified the issues here and I�ve no real view on the likely success of a retrial under the new law because I do not know what, if any, �new� or �compelling� evidence there may be.
What I will say on a more general note is that I am completely against the provisions for retrials in these circumstances which the 2003 Act has enabled. At present the law is framed so that such retrials are only possible in exceptional circumstances. It will not be too long before these restrictions begin to be gradually relaxed (usually as hidden clauses in otherwise innocuous legislation). Eventually multiple retrials of individuals will be permissible almost without hindrance until the prosecution finally gets the answer it wants from a jury.
This particular case (for which I feel the legislation was specifically enacted to tackle) is tragic. As is the murder of any person, young or old, black or white. Those individuals �in the frame� for the offence � however unpleasant they may appear to some - were found not guilty following a private prosecution brought following bad advice.
"Knowing who did it" is not enough. This country still (for the moment) requires charges to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. These charges could not be so substantiated. As a result those accused are innocent and have no need to respond to charges laid by the Daily Mail or anybody else.
The families of many murder victims have to suffer seeing the acquittal of the person accused of taking their loved one�s life. Many more fail to see anybody in the dock at all. They are not afforded the luxury of a public enquiry into the police conduct in their case. The adoption of some recommendations from that enquiry has caused, and continues to cause the police on the ground considerable difficulties. It is time this matter was laid to rest.
What I will say on a more general note is that I am completely against the provisions for retrials in these circumstances which the 2003 Act has enabled. At present the law is framed so that such retrials are only possible in exceptional circumstances. It will not be too long before these restrictions begin to be gradually relaxed (usually as hidden clauses in otherwise innocuous legislation). Eventually multiple retrials of individuals will be permissible almost without hindrance until the prosecution finally gets the answer it wants from a jury.
This particular case (for which I feel the legislation was specifically enacted to tackle) is tragic. As is the murder of any person, young or old, black or white. Those individuals �in the frame� for the offence � however unpleasant they may appear to some - were found not guilty following a private prosecution brought following bad advice.
"Knowing who did it" is not enough. This country still (for the moment) requires charges to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. These charges could not be so substantiated. As a result those accused are innocent and have no need to respond to charges laid by the Daily Mail or anybody else.
The families of many murder victims have to suffer seeing the acquittal of the person accused of taking their loved one�s life. Many more fail to see anybody in the dock at all. They are not afforded the luxury of a public enquiry into the police conduct in their case. The adoption of some recommendations from that enquiry has caused, and continues to cause the police on the ground considerable difficulties. It is time this matter was laid to rest.
1 to 14 of 14
Latest Posts
Using Mould Killller Spray On Car
Motoring12 mins ago
London Drinker (Volume 46,No. 2)
Crosswords14 mins ago
News16 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles20 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles21 mins ago
