>> I'm not clear what the blogger's rationale for a retrial really is.
HAving read the whole piece whilst fully awake and alert I still don't get the argument.
Seems to suggest that part of the jury's route to a verdict might have given great weight to the first indictment, the case that was overturned, in relation to the other allegations. There is no evidence either way on this and of course the law would prevent a juror telling us if that was the case.
To my mind the evidence of his daughter Bindi's friend, as per the Judge's remarks, was overwhelmingly convincing. He deserved five years and more for that alone.
The rest of B Blogger's rationale seems to be based on the Court of Appeal's failures in cases over the period between Timothy Evans and the various miscarriages of justice involving IRA activity in the seventies.
Neither can I see any case whatsoever for some sort of 'statute of limitation' to prevent old allegations being followed up and prosecuted. Sure time elapsed since the actions alleged and the potential credibility of alleged victims, witnesses and the defendant are things the Prosecutor should take account of. It may even be something which the defence wants to address the judge on without the jury.
It's not a traffic offence, or something that happened on a day at work. I'm pretty sure if one had been in the habit of digitally penetrating one's daughter's friends it's not something you'd forget.
Let the jury decide.
|
