Author Topic: Ex Attorney General prosecutes accountant. Privy Council quashes conviction.  (Read 7975 times)

Offline boatyboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3451
Sorry post removed.

Using my heart not my head.

Therefore not being objective.

I'm human too, so make mistakes.

Boatyboy
« Last Edit: November 07, 2009, 12:16:02 AM by boatyboy »

Offline boatyboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3451
Copied from a far more knowledgeable writer and very relevant.

Quote:-

Michel's first appeal was dismissed - by an appeal court presided over by none other than our illustrious bailiff, Michael Birt QC.

Only when the appeal went beyond the shores of this island did the accused get a fair trial.

The fact that the Privy Council produced such a strongly condemnatory judgement of the original trial begs the question why the first court of appeal failed to reach the same conclusion.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2009, 12:02:30 AM by boatyboy »

Offline Dundee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 902
Cases can be approached in different ways in an appeal, so someone dismissing an appeal may not be at fault as they are dismissing what is put in front of them.

It would appear it was the conduct of the Judge that was questioned in the appeal.

Offline boatyboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3451
Dundee if I may quote you.

so someone dismissing an appeal may not be at fault as they are dismissing what is put in front of them.

Are you suggesting that the two appeal courts one in Jersey the other in England had different information ? I would suggest it was legal copy of the actual trial therefore identical. What I do find interesting is Judge ( Commisioner) Sir G. Nice an articulate and highly intelligent man of great experiance started acting in an unprofessional manner, as confirmed by the Privy council panel of judges in their summing up. Help me out here.

Why ?  

BB
« Last Edit: November 07, 2009, 12:13:45 AM by boatyboy »

Offline Dundee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 902
exactly BB it was not the case, but the way the case was handled as the grounds for the appeal, I have not looked at this in any great way just gauging a view from tonights news, as they say he got off on a technicality.

Offline Uriel

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 33
  • Gender: Male
My understanding, from a most reliable source, is that the members of Jersey's judiciary were, without exception, troubled by the way in which Sir Geoffrey Nice QC conducted himself during Michel's trial.  BB is quite wrong to suggest that this matter did not trouble the Court of Appeal: it's quite clear that the Court of Appeal was deeply concerned by the way in which Sir Geoffrey had presided over Michel's trial, but concluded that, because of the overwhelming evidence against Michel, Sir Geoffrey's conduct did not affect the decision of the jury.  What the Privy Council has decided is that the Court of Appeal should simply have considered the conduct of the trial judge, not the weight of evidence against Michel.

It is very surprising that Sir Geoffrey, who is - as BB notes - a very intelligent and articulate individual, was willing to express his views about Michel's defence so openly.  I can only speculate as to why that might be, but I don't suppose that I'd be far away from the truth in writing that it probably reflects the fact that Michel's defence was clearly a fairytale.  In a way, it's a great pity that our judicial system doesn't seek to find the truth of any matter, it seeks to follow forms and conventions.

Offline boatyboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3451

Uriel

Thanks for the interesting post. If I may quote you,

In a way, it's a great pity that our judicial system doesn't seek to find the truth of any matter, it seeks to follow forms and conventions.

That says what exactly about Jerseys judicial system ?

BB

ole razzy

  • Guest
Sorry post removed.

Using my heart not my head.

Therefore not being objective.

I'm human too, so make mistakes.

Boatyboy

Too late mate - I just read your entire original post on Stuart Syvret's blog. Reading it again I can't see why you bothered to delete it. 

Offline Dylan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1672
  • HELP!
Aand the link is.....................?
!dereggub si draobyek ym kniht I

Offline Uriel

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 33
  • Gender: Male
That says what exactly about Jerseys judicial system ?

The criminal justice system in Jersey is based upon the English adversarial system, which in effect pits prosecutor against defense advocate, to determine which can mount the most convincing argument: this system has many checks and balances to ensure a fair and just trial - one of which, pertinent to this case, is that the judge should act impartially.  This might be contrasted with the French criminal justice system, an inquisitorial system, where a magistrate acts as inquisitor to try and discover (if that's possible) the truth of what happened.  Many commentators argue that the adversarial system provides a much fairer system of justice for those who have been accused of crimes: in particular, the argument against the inquisitorial system is that the magistrate (as happened in Michel's trial) isn't impartial, and as the magistrate is appointed by politicians, there isn't a proper separation of powers.  However, as I intimated in my earlier post, I believe that a problem with the adversarial system is that it attaches great weight to ensuring a fair and just trial, sometimes to the detriment of seeking the truth.

Offline man in the street

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1140
are jersey laws not based on jersey feudal law, in the days when the lot of it was spoken in jersey french.
  from a personal point,  i was in the magistrates court along time ago, the chap up before me ,  was being advised by the magistrate that , he was there to help him, as he (the defendant ) had no councel.
 and advised him that he , may want to seek legal aid.
 and have often thought , that the magistrate did seek to find the truth of what had happened.

Offline Chevalier Blanc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1836
The prosecutes have to show all the evidence they have against a person being taken to court for a trail that is the law. So how our judiciarycan not disclose certain evidence to SSS is against the law, so now you know why SSS say he will not get a fair trail. On that bases he is right.

Offline Dylan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1672
  • HELP!
Are you saying they are on the right trail then CB?
!dereggub si draobyek ym kniht I

rogueelement

  • Guest
I think gordon you are covering old ground ,Cb tried to be eloquent but obviously had a few, I think you should let it pass.

Offline Dylan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1672
  • HELP!
Spoilsport! I'd have thought e would know the difference between a trial and a trail! Although I don't quite follow it it is a Trial isn't it!
!dereggub si draobyek ym kniht I