Skip to main content

Victor Nealon: case raises questions

A constituent approached me in 2011 raising concerns about the failure to consider the new evidence  It seemed that this should be considered and the court of appeal has now considered this.  On behalf of my constituent I spent some time working with his lawyer to get the CCRC to consider this aspect of the case.

I am mainly concerned about two things directly relating to the appeal:
a) How long it took for this evidence to be considered as part of an appeal.  This is an issue as to how the CCRC works.
b) That the system continues to punish people who maintain their innocence.

Both of these issues need to be considered.

This is in fact the third criminal appeal I have assisted with where the defendant was found either to be not guilty or to have been wrongly sentenced.  There are other aspects of the process that cause me concern.  One is that the barrister who handles the case at the court of first instance is the person who also writes the opinion as to the likelihood of success on appeal.  I am not sure that this is really sensible.

Some more about his case http://www.insidetime.org/articleview.asp?a=187&c=a_lump_on_the_forehead

Comments

A newspaper report comments 'That the Prosecution stated no Forensic evidence was available'. Since this was clearly not the case can we the public expect either a prosecution of those who kept this evidence from view or at the very least I expect some heads to roll.
'One is that the barrister who handles the case at the court of first instance is the person who also writes the opinion as to the likelihood of success on appeal. I am not sure that this is really sensible.'

No it is not sensible, As somebody with no knowledge of this subject until recently, I have been shocked to discover that this is the protocol. Not only can a barrister give opinion on a case that he / she may have conducted in a less than perfect manner but also it is up to their discretion what evidence is submitted.. For many the option of a new legal team for the appeal is not possible as Legal aid is not provided..

Popular posts from this blog

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Gender Issues comparison of candidates

John Hemming believes that an MP should represent everyone in their constituency.  This should be regardless of their race, religion, gender, abledness, sexual orientation or anything else.  It should be everyone.

When he was an MP he worked on issues relating to men, those relating to women and those relating to non-binary people. Everyone.

For example here is John Hemming on a demonstration outside the courts with the campaign group Women Against Rape (it related to the case of a mother who had her child removed from her because the mother was raped).




Jess Phillips, who campaigns on women's issues, notwithstanding the questions asked about her appointments in her parliamentary office, had the following response when asked for a debate on issues specifically relating to men: