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

Anonymous said…
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.
Anonymous said…
'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

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…