PUBLISHED: 01:19, 6 October 2013 | UPDATED: 01:54, 6 October 2013
Judges bid to banish the Bible from court over fears witnesses and defendants no longer take the oath seriously
">Religious oath could be scraped amid concerns it is not taken seriously,
>Witnesses and defendants would take new oath without mentioning God,
>Is claimed oath would be fairer for everyone and be easier to understand."
"A MoJ spokesman said: ‘We have no plans to change the arrangements for swearing an oath or making an affirmation in court, which have worked well for many years and still do.’" [hahahahahahahaha]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2446250/Judges-bid-banish-Bible-court-fears-witnesses-defendants-longer-oath-seriously.html
Showing posts with label Witness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Witness. Show all posts
Sunday, 6 October 2013
Monday, 1 July 2013
A Cautionary Tale Of 'Justice'
June 2013
What they don’t tell you when you give evidence
"A cautionary tale from a witness for the defence
“I swear by Almighty God that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”
Little did I know that by giving evidence in the trial of my husband I was putting my job and entire career in jeopardy. For 3 months I tried to make a statement to the police when my husband was arrested, but they were not forthcoming in taking it, so I had to look at alternatives. The solution was found by my husband’s Solicitor – I made a statement to her. The police have not offered any explanation for not taking my statement.
The evidence I gave in both my statement and the trial in my opinion was the truth from my eyes. To be able to reach an accurate conclusion the Jury needed to know the facts. My time on the stand lasted just under 3 hours and I was exhausted by the end. Throughout, I was grilled by the prosecution, who believed I was supporting my husband, when in fact I tried to keep an open mind. In hindsight if I had given my statement to the police I might have been perceived differently. I answered factual questions and was asked for my opinion on several incidents related to the allegations.
A few weeks later I was called to a meeting by my employer. A Trade Union Representative accompanied me. I work in the Public Sector. Unbeknown to me my employer had acquired a copy of the transcript of my evidence from the trial and I was cross-examined on the answers I gave. I had to justify my previous answers, particularly those that were opinion based. It became obvious that it was felt some of my opinions were not appropriate according to my profession and Professional Standards. It was at this point I considered a link between the high proportion of opinion questions and the fact my employer had a copy of the transcript – they were not present in court and had no direct interest ..."
http://www.insidetime.org/articleview.asp?a=1494&c=what_they_dont_tell_you_when_you_give_evidence
What they don’t tell you when you give evidence
"A cautionary tale from a witness for the defence
“I swear by Almighty God that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”
Little did I know that by giving evidence in the trial of my husband I was putting my job and entire career in jeopardy. For 3 months I tried to make a statement to the police when my husband was arrested, but they were not forthcoming in taking it, so I had to look at alternatives. The solution was found by my husband’s Solicitor – I made a statement to her. The police have not offered any explanation for not taking my statement.
The evidence I gave in both my statement and the trial in my opinion was the truth from my eyes. To be able to reach an accurate conclusion the Jury needed to know the facts. My time on the stand lasted just under 3 hours and I was exhausted by the end. Throughout, I was grilled by the prosecution, who believed I was supporting my husband, when in fact I tried to keep an open mind. In hindsight if I had given my statement to the police I might have been perceived differently. I answered factual questions and was asked for my opinion on several incidents related to the allegations.
A few weeks later I was called to a meeting by my employer. A Trade Union Representative accompanied me. I work in the Public Sector. Unbeknown to me my employer had acquired a copy of the transcript of my evidence from the trial and I was cross-examined on the answers I gave. I had to justify my previous answers, particularly those that were opinion based. It became obvious that it was felt some of my opinions were not appropriate according to my profession and Professional Standards. It was at this point I considered a link between the high proportion of opinion questions and the fact my employer had a copy of the transcript – they were not present in court and had no direct interest ..."
http://www.insidetime.org/articleview.asp?a=1494&c=what_they_dont_tell_you_when_you_give_evidence
Friday, 28 December 2012
Liars' Charter?
Friday, 28 December 2012
National witness protection scheme announced
"The creation of the first UK-wide witness protection service was announced today.
Witnesses and other vulnerable people afforded protected person status due to a real and immediate risk to their lives will receive enhanced UK-wide protection and support.
The new UK Protected Persons Service will support those who help bring criminals to justice by:
>Introducing national quality standards,
>Ensuring better co-ordination across existing fragmented services,
>Promoting intelligence sharing between police forces, and
>Strengthening local services to create a consistent and accountable service."
http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/features/national-witness-protection-scheme-announced
New Witness Protection Scheme To Be Launched
http://news.sky.com/story/1030828/new-witness-protection-scheme-to-be-launched
National witness protection scheme announced
"The creation of the first UK-wide witness protection service was announced today.
Witnesses and other vulnerable people afforded protected person status due to a real and immediate risk to their lives will receive enhanced UK-wide protection and support.
The new UK Protected Persons Service will support those who help bring criminals to justice by:
>Introducing national quality standards,
>Ensuring better co-ordination across existing fragmented services,
>Promoting intelligence sharing between police forces, and
>Strengthening local services to create a consistent and accountable service."
http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/features/national-witness-protection-scheme-announced
New Witness Protection Scheme To Be Launched
http://news.sky.com/story/1030828/new-witness-protection-scheme-to-be-launched
Wednesday, 12 December 2012
Goose And Goslings
December 11, 2012
Sex offender wins new sentencing hearing
"Trial judge denied defence request to cross-examine teen victims on impact statements
A married father who sexually assaulted two Ottawa schoolgirls, aged 12 and 16, in a backyard pool has won a new sentencing hearing because the trial judge refused to let the young victims be subjected to another “brutal” cross-examination by their abuser’s lawyer.
In an appeal decision, Ontario Superior Court Justice Colin McKinnon upheld the man’s child-sex crimes conviction but ordered provincial court Justice J.D. Nadelle to hold a fresh sentencing hearing for the sex offender, whose six-month jail term is now quashed.
The problem with N’s sentencing hearing came after the girls filed their victim-impact statements. The judge called their statements compelling and then refused to let their abuser’s lawyer cross-examine the girls."
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/offender+wins+sentencing+hearing/7684355/story.html
Sex offender wins new sentencing hearing
"Trial judge denied defence request to cross-examine teen victims on impact statements
A married father who sexually assaulted two Ottawa schoolgirls, aged 12 and 16, in a backyard pool has won a new sentencing hearing because the trial judge refused to let the young victims be subjected to another “brutal” cross-examination by their abuser’s lawyer.
In an appeal decision, Ontario Superior Court Justice Colin McKinnon upheld the man’s child-sex crimes conviction but ordered provincial court Justice J.D. Nadelle to hold a fresh sentencing hearing for the sex offender, whose six-month jail term is now quashed.
The problem with N’s sentencing hearing came after the girls filed their victim-impact statements. The judge called their statements compelling and then refused to let their abuser’s lawyer cross-examine the girls."
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/offender+wins+sentencing+hearing/7684355/story.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)