News0 min ago
Criminal conviction 12 years ago ... What avenues remain?
7 Answers
I was convicted of harassment under s.2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 back in 2000 when it was flavour of the month for prosecutors, the courts and the media. A letter has been sent this week to News International informing them of my intention to sue for defamation under the repeat publication rule ... During and following the trial, my accuser went on the rampage in the media. An interview in the NoW contained no fewer than 20 malicious falsehoods.
The problems with my trial were as follows:
1. I was questioned alone by the police despite them being made fully aware of my severe depression. As a result I performed poorly at interview and inadvertently incriminated myself.
2. I was given a duty solicitor who's first task was to tell me he knew nothing about the Act. It turned out that I knew more about it than him.
3. I told the solicitor that whilst I was going to plead guilty, I felt that my actions had been reasonable under the circumstances ... I directly quoted a defence under the Act. My actions had been an attempt at self help and I still maintain that I did the right thing.
4. I pleaded guilty under duress caused by my concerns of the effect a prolonged trial would have on my mental health ... I felt it would put my life at increased risk.
5. I was clearly unfit to even plead but, despite my requests he do so, the solicitor refused to mention my depressed state, citing what he described as 'certain prejudices against mental health by the legal system'.
6. Throughout, I was unable to take effective part in my own trial. Apart from my highly vulnerable mental state, I couldn't hear either the prosecution or my own solicitor despite them being close by (despite wearing a hearing aid), and my solicitor consistently refused to allow me any input and ignored all instruction from me. In fact, he threw me to the wolves. My accuser had lied through her teeth to police, I wrote four pages of correction, he used none of it. When I read what he had actually said, I was livid.
6. The solicitor almost certainly breached my Human Rights. During the trial, my accuser had given an interview with the local paper. At the same time, the anti-depressants I had been on had finally started to have some effect. I realised that she was a bigger danger to me and my mental state than the proceedings so told the solicitor that I wanted to change my plea to 'not guilty'. He told me that I couldn't because 'the sentencing process has already begun'. It wasn't until 3 years later, after becoming a law student, that I discovered that I had every right to change my plea up till the time sentence was passed.
The case against me and the trial process was flawed throughout. It was almost as if they'd decided the outcome before it had gone to court and had to do something to pass the time. I suffered years of trauma because of this and spent years recovering and coping with suicidal thoughts. All because of an evil, scheming, manipulative sex pest of a female.
Over the years I've tried the CCRC, Mags, and CC but no luck. It's been one corrupt decision after another. Now that I'm in a better mental state I want to pursue the matter as far as I can take it. What other options might be available to me?
The problems with my trial were as follows:
1. I was questioned alone by the police despite them being made fully aware of my severe depression. As a result I performed poorly at interview and inadvertently incriminated myself.
2. I was given a duty solicitor who's first task was to tell me he knew nothing about the Act. It turned out that I knew more about it than him.
3. I told the solicitor that whilst I was going to plead guilty, I felt that my actions had been reasonable under the circumstances ... I directly quoted a defence under the Act. My actions had been an attempt at self help and I still maintain that I did the right thing.
4. I pleaded guilty under duress caused by my concerns of the effect a prolonged trial would have on my mental health ... I felt it would put my life at increased risk.
5. I was clearly unfit to even plead but, despite my requests he do so, the solicitor refused to mention my depressed state, citing what he described as 'certain prejudices against mental health by the legal system'.
6. Throughout, I was unable to take effective part in my own trial. Apart from my highly vulnerable mental state, I couldn't hear either the prosecution or my own solicitor despite them being close by (despite wearing a hearing aid), and my solicitor consistently refused to allow me any input and ignored all instruction from me. In fact, he threw me to the wolves. My accuser had lied through her teeth to police, I wrote four pages of correction, he used none of it. When I read what he had actually said, I was livid.
6. The solicitor almost certainly breached my Human Rights. During the trial, my accuser had given an interview with the local paper. At the same time, the anti-depressants I had been on had finally started to have some effect. I realised that she was a bigger danger to me and my mental state than the proceedings so told the solicitor that I wanted to change my plea to 'not guilty'. He told me that I couldn't because 'the sentencing process has already begun'. It wasn't until 3 years later, after becoming a law student, that I discovered that I had every right to change my plea up till the time sentence was passed.
The case against me and the trial process was flawed throughout. It was almost as if they'd decided the outcome before it had gone to court and had to do something to pass the time. I suffered years of trauma because of this and spent years recovering and coping with suicidal thoughts. All because of an evil, scheming, manipulative sex pest of a female.
Over the years I've tried the CCRC, Mags, and CC but no luck. It's been one corrupt decision after another. Now that I'm in a better mental state I want to pursue the matter as far as I can take it. What other options might be available to me?
Answers
1 to 7 of 7
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Daiabolical. 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.
Appeal the conviction. The law clearly states that, at the very least, the matter should have been returned to the Magistrates for them to investigate the cause of my guilty plea. On top of that you have the shockingly poor performance of the court appointed lawyer and the behaviour of the police. Let's not even go there with the behaviour of my accuser.
I have tried the CCRC but, unbeknown to me at the time, they do have a certain reputation for explaining away evidence. Even when their own decision making and report shows numerous severe flaws they will refuse to look at it again - even when there's new evidence. They really are a waste of space and taxpayer's money.
I have tried the CCRC but, unbeknown to me at the time, they do have a certain reputation for explaining away evidence. Even when their own decision making and report shows numerous severe flaws they will refuse to look at it again - even when there's new evidence. They really are a waste of space and taxpayer's money.
Then I think you're on to a loser.
Unless there are exceptional circumstances appeals against conviction and/or sentence in the Magsitrates' court must be lodged with the Crown Court within 21 days.
Whatever the NotW has done recently you may have trouble explaining why you have waited 12 years to launch an appeal.
Unless there are exceptional circumstances appeals against conviction and/or sentence in the Magsitrates' court must be lodged with the Crown Court within 21 days.
Whatever the NotW has done recently you may have trouble explaining why you have waited 12 years to launch an appeal.
Actually, I didn't wait 12 years to lodge an appeal. I did it way back in 2001 but the judge proceeded to ask me the wrong question, which scuppered my chances of an appeal. Due to the performance of my previous lawyer, I opted to do it without the aid of a lawyer. It wasn't until 2003 that I discovered several cases that showed I was a) in the right and b) that I should have had the case referred back to the magistrates.
The delay has been primarily due to the intransigence and excuses (doesn't help when a magistrates' clerk lies through his teeth) of individuals within the legal system. Something I've learned is that the law means nothing when you have people like this who's sole job is to make things as difficult as possible for appelants.
The delay has been primarily due to the intransigence and excuses (doesn't help when a magistrates' clerk lies through his teeth) of individuals within the legal system. Something I've learned is that the law means nothing when you have people like this who's sole job is to make things as difficult as possible for appelants.
Then since your appeal has been heard and dismissed you have no avenues left. You may have had cause to take the matter to the High Court or Court of Appeal based on the issues you have mentioned (though it is most unlikely). However, the time elapsed between then and now really scuppers any chance you may have had.
Sorry but I have to agree with New Judge . Trying to fight this now is just going to cost a fortune and with no hope of a win. News International can afford the best lawyers in the world and money is no object to them. Start procedings against them and you can kiss goodbye to a few £100,000s just prepareing a case. Don't even think about it unless you have a couple of million £s you want to throw away.
1 to 7 of 7
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.