Forum Members Posts Being Deleted For No Reason

[JackiePreece]

There are no accusations for you to defend against. If ever there were, then Neil is quite capable of defending himself.

With regards to Campions posts on the subject, then you are also inaccurate. It's my own burden, and I even add to all by myself at times, but I personally find it quite annoying that people post information without even pretending to check that it is accurate. I don't mean the contentious issues which can be interpreted in a number of ways, I mean quite blatant inaccurate information.

Let's focus then on one of Anne Eatons statements

'Granny Speakman had photos of all the family but I don't think she had a photo of Jeremy amongst them'

Hartley what was the point of that statement other than trying to show Jeremy in a bad light'
No proof that Jeremys photo wasn't there so what was the purpose of Annes statement Hartley

Please explain I am dying to know?

[ngb1066]

Neil - out of interest... when something is witheld under PII is there a requirement for an internal record to be kept justifying the decision at the time, such that if the evidence is later released (say, under some 30-year-rule or some such equivalent) that the justification used internally at the time could then be seen?

I do not know of any specific rule Bob, but for PII to be claimed there has to be a formal decision taken, usually within the office of the DPP at a senior level, possibly the Director himself.  Such a decision would define the specific witness statements and exhibits covered.  The decision would be recorded in writing and that recorsdshould be retained in accordance with the DPP's internal policies.  In addition there will be correspondence between the DPP's office and those involved in the prosecution.  There will therefore be a paper trail and it is therefore possible that the reasons could in due course be made public.

   

[ngb1066]

Then why do they themselves say that the contents of the phone call are still a mystery?

Because they have not seen a record of the contents of the phone call.

[JackiePreece]

NGB has a DPP ever been prosecuted over a decision to withold evidence that leads to a conviction being overturned

Could you  also explain the 30 year rule as we are not far off it now

[JackiePreece]

Ngb just roughly in your experience what % of MOJ cases are overturned when witheld evidence is released

I bet it's over 50%

[bob]

I do not know of any specific rule Bob, but for PII to be claimed there has to be a formal decision taken, usually within the office of the DPP at a senior level, possibly the Director himself.  Such a decision would define the specific witness statements and exhibits covered.  The decision would be recorded in writing and that recorsdshould be retained in accordance with the DPP's internal policies.  In addition there will be correspondence between the DPP's office and those involved in the prosecution.  There will therefore be a paper trail and it is therefore possible that the reasons could in due course be made public.

Thakns Neil - it would be interesting to see that paper trail one day!

[ngb1066]

Ngb just roughly in your experience what % of MOJ cases are overturned when witheld evidence is released

I bet it's over 50%

I do not know the percentage but I would say in a large majority of MOJ cases withheld evidence is an important feature.

[JackiePreece]

Thanks Neil that's exactly what I guessed

[ngb1066]

NGB has a DPP ever been prosecuted over a decision to withold evidence that leads to a conviction being overturned

Could you  also explain the 30 year rule as we are not far off it now

No DPP has ever been prosecuted whilst in office.  The closest was the DPP at the time of Jeremy Bamber's trial, who had to resign subsequently after being arresterd for kerb crawling at King's Cross.  Another DPP more recently had previous convictions for drugs offences.   There is no likelihood of a DPP being prosecuted for an incorrect PII decision.

 

[ngb1066]

Thakns Neil - it would be interesting to see that paper trail one day!

I agree Bob, it would make interesting reading!

[Roch]

What is the evidence for that?

Bridget, you may be referring specifically to the jury (?).  Did you see the clip of Bob Miller I posted up for you?  That is the official version is it not?  She came forward to unberden her self.

[Bridget]

Bridget, you may be referring specifically to the jury (?).  Did you see the clip of Bob Miller I posted up for you?  That is the official version is it not?  She came forward to unberden her self.

What I'm asking is what is the evidence for this:

They were misled into believing that Julie Mugford conscience had got the better of her so she came forward voluntarily and gave the police her account.  In fact she did not come forward voluntarily and was put under intense pressure by the police.

I did see the link you posted to Miller, thanks for that, I don't think I've seen that before.

[JackiePreece]

Unfortunately for you Bridget you don't have access to all the privileged evidence/information that Ngb has but I would trust his word

[Bridget]

Unfortunately for you Bridget you don't have access to all the privileged evidence/information that Ngb has but I would trust his word

Neither do you, and I'm not questioning his word.

[guest154]

Unfortunately for you Bridget you don't have access to all the privileged evidence/information that Ngb has but I would trust his word

Are you claiming NGB has any access to any  PII material? I don't think NGB has claimed this?