Hello, I am a solicitor with 20 years experience. I will try to answer this question
Judges in summing up have 2 roles. One is to summarise the evidence in the trial and the other is to provide guidance on the law to the jury. If he is summarising the evidence he should not refer to evidence that was not before the court during the trial.
In a recent criminal matter, just before the trial commenced, the prosecution stated they'd NOT introduce details of a civil matter the defendant had been involved in, which concerned the claimant.If the judge went out of his way to actually criticize and admonish the Defendant, stating to the jury actual events the defendant undertook, and the jury had absolutely NO knowledge of what he referred to, could that be grounds for a re trial?
ooops, sorry it went before I'd finished...
That being the case, the jury never heard anything at all about that civil matter.
Then in his summing the judge went out of his was to criticize and admonish the defendant about his civil matter and how it had impinged on that claimant, then told the jury they could take what he said into account, could that be a basis to have a re trial?
Yes, if the Judge has in his summing up referred to evidence that was not given in the trial then that could found an appeal. Are you sue that this evidence wasn't subject to an agreement between the prosecution and defence and put in writing for the jury. If that happened it would still be evidence but it would not have been read to the court.
No I can assure you BEFORE the trial started the 2 barristers had a meeting and the prosecutor declared he wasn't going to introduce that civil matter and 2 witnesses. (
HAD he done so and the 2 witnesses as their evidence contradicted to the main witness, well you see why he wanted it and them kept out.
Also there was nothing given to the Jury.
Is it possible you could quote me an authority, you've probably guessed I'm the poor sap trying to prove I'm innocent here
Not sure I can give you any authority fro this it is juts a statement of the obvious applying basic principles. You should have been given an advice on appeal by your advocate shortly after your conviction. Did you get one? When were you convicted?
The advice on appeal was there wasn't a hope.
It's difficult to complain to you about how bad my representation was but there was no advice on an appeal, I've spent every minute of the last 2 years going over every word. and because the civil matter wasn't explored or put to the jury except in the summing up
Sorry, I keep hitting the return button, please see below
The civil matter wasn't put forward and though references were made to it, there's no way the jury could've decided on what was said because they didn't hear the full story. Then when references were made to it, obviously there was only one side to consider.
Also, I fell out with my 'representative', she was less than USELESS, the man I wanted hadn't finished his trial and we couldn't get an adjournement.
Look, I'll put together another try
the second matter is on my belief the judge should've recused himself. He seriously admonished me a short time earlier in another matter and then popped up in this one. I immediately recognised him and he immediately recognized me PLUS in my area for miles and miles I'm the ONLY one in a huge area with my name and I'm easily recognized.
Is there any possible mileage to this that seriously telling me off in another completely separate matter should be grounds to recuse himself in the second matter/
Did you rasie the recusal issue with your lawyer
Sorry mistyped. Bearing in mind the length of time that has passed since your conviction you should probably contact the Criminal Cases Review Commsision to try to persuade them to bring an appeal.