How JustAnswer Works:

  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.

Ask Jo C. Your Own Question

Jo C.
Jo C., Barrister
Category: Law
Satisfied Customers: 69516
Experience:  Over 5 years in practice
12826847
Type Your Law Question Here...
Jo C. is online now

I would like to know all the ins and outs regarding granting

Customer Question

I would like to know all the ins and outs regarding granting bail, I would like to know the best chance I have in obtaining bail.
Submitted: 3 months ago.
Category: Law
Expert:  Jo C. replied 3 months ago.

what is the offence?

Customer: replied 3 months ago.
the offence is rape, I am appealing a wrongful conviction and I want to apply for bail while i am on appeal?
Expert:  Jo C. replied 3 months ago.

Are you in substantive custody now?

Customer: replied 3 months ago.
I am outside now so it is difficult to talk over the phone otherwise i would ve liked to
Customer: replied 3 months ago.
no, I will be back to the uk in 10 days time, I want to apply for bail from now?
Customer: replied 3 months ago.
I only broke my bail condition once because i had to go to see my ill mother, otherwise I always adhered to the rules etc....
Expert:  Jo C. replied 3 months ago.

Ok. But I need to understand the stage this has reached.

if you have been convicted then why are you on bail?

Customer: replied 3 months ago.
I had to visit my ill mother so I left the country before i was sentinced, as I am wrongly convicted I am going to appeal. so technically i did not surrender, however i will in two weesk time or so
Customer: replied 3 months ago.
I can apply for bail with my appeal
Expert:  Jo C. replied 3 months ago.

Thanks.

Im really sorry but that is not realistic I'm afraid.

You can still appeal but there is no prospect of bail.

If your application for leave to appeal is granted then there is a chance of bail but you will need to show a fairly overwhelming form of fresh evidence.

Expert:  Jo C. replied 3 months ago.

It is not easy to achieve this I'm afraid.

I don't think I ever have.

Can I clarify anything for you?

Jo

Customer: replied 3 months ago.
my grounds for appeal are pretty strong, so I am optimistic of the appeal being granted, however I share your pesimisim for the granting of bail. do you think it is better to wait until the appeal decision is made? as I can send teh application for bail later on. I do have fresh evidence for the bail.
Expert:  Jo C. replied 3 months ago.

Oh yes, definitely.

Wait for leave to be granted.

It has to be pretty much a rocket through the crowns' case.

Jo C., Barrister
Category: Law
Satisfied Customers: 69516
Experience: Over 5 years in practice
Jo C. and other Law Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 3 months ago.
well my appeal has 7 grounds two of which are strong, one of which proves beyond reasonalbe doubt I could not have been guilty. would it be ok to show the strong ground for your opinion>
Customer: replied 3 months ago.
I have asked for an acceleration of my appeal application as well, not sure if they ll take any notice but i have nothing to loose.
Customer: replied 3 months ago.
Ground 2Proof beyond doubt that the Emily the accuser claim of rape can not be trueThe 99 call, the confusion and meeting mr Muir, this could show Emily did not know what happening which could be a sign of capacity were lost (Possibility 2). On the other hand, her unfriendliness towards me at this point and asking for a handbag could indicate she does now and does remember but unhappy with what happened (possibility 1).
In possibility 1 where Emily was regretting what happen. And her subsequent claim of rape to PC Hien even though she admitted she does not remember and does not know whether she consented or not at this point. Only the second day she claimed to have had a flashback of someone having sex with her, she could not describe this man or the correct lay out of the place. She described an airbed, and hanging off a mattress, someone pinning her, having se with her. Well my house has no airbed and there is no bed to hang off it. What was the flashback reliable enough to trigger a rape accusation? (The flashback was not mentioned in her interview with the police, only in court, wouldnt that be an inconsistency of her story?) Flashback according to experts are not a reliable source of information. Especially if the flashback is not accurately describing the situation in the house. In a lot of cases flashbacks can sometimes represent what a person wants to believe rather than what actually happen. I personally get similar things one of which was a farmer running after me in a farming type hammer wants to kill me. In reality this has never happened to me. I am sure other will have so many examples.
In possibilities 2 where Emily indeed did not remember and she has truly lost her capacity to consent. We need to look at the start. The In car audio clearly shows that Emily had consented even though by the admission of Emily herself which she listened to it in court. The audio shows Emily speaking normally, holding a conversation and eventually showing signs of wanting sex. The clear signs of wanting sex might be little bit strange behaviour. However people behaves in different ways and it is really hard to draw any conclusion to the state of the behaviour by a normal outside observer. It would seem that Emily was offering to have sex and it was my choice to accept or refuse. There were no reason to refuse. I was in control as the offer was made to me and I saw no concrete reason to say no especially, I have a problem with my girlfriend and we are in the finish stages ( the police was called twice ) so Emily could be a potential girl to see more than once. I had met a girlfriend while I was working as a taxi driver before and we lasted three years.
The town CCTVs showed Emily walking unsteady after leaving Dutton for a small stretch however, the following images before she gets into the car as she was walking down from Bridge street, Emily was walking normally and opened the heavy car door climbed the high car as it is described in my interview. Without seeing any signs of drunkenness (the images directly before Emily gets into the car are the most relevant as those what I could see).
Emily seemed to me a girl with familiar face chatty with me exhibiting signs of liking me in her own way, her way might seem to be strange but this is not a major factor as people behave in different ways and I would not normally criticise people. People do not like to be criticised. In my perspective at the time, this was a happy night where I met someone who we enjoyed sex together and I might see her again I made sure she was pleased sexually and bought her food and treated her well. (see audio conversation in appendices)
In short If indeed Emily lost her capacity or some of her capacity to consent for any reason, the evidence suggests she did not appear that way and I have no way of knowing that she did.Emily said she can-not remember.
To ascertain whether Emily is telling the truth a forensic report is needed, more detailed one than the police basic forensic report, this will need to be cross examined with Emily story, her friend Paige Meehan and Ann Diamond. Those are the two people who saw her directly before she get into my car and described her status meaning whether she was drunk or not and to what degree.
Emily story
Emily remember everything from 3 pm until around 8.30 apart from half an hour period where she went to Liguer & co in Chester where she had a cocktail. She want to this place after drinking two glasses of wine approximately 500 ml of alcohol. It seems like the memory of this place has been completely wiped out of Emily’s memory ( a bit odd ). Also Emily stated she had a sandwich and drank lots and lots of water from 3 pm to 5 pm. Emily did not have an underpants. She said she normally have one.
N.B. Emily claimed in court that she would normally use a condom if she was aware.
Paige Meehan Story
Paige is Emily best friend, Paige story is almost identical to Emily story apart from
Customer: replied 3 months ago.
Paige Meehan Story
Paige is Emily best friend, Paige story is almost identical to Emily story apart from the missing half an hour in Liquer & co and the time from 8.30 to 9.30 where Paige left Emily. Paige stated that, Emily had around one and half bottle of white wine in total plus a cocktail from 5.00 Pm until 9.30 approximately 4.20 to 4.30 hours. Also Paige stated in court that they left their cocktails unattended in Liquer & co.
Paige stated that, Emily was in control of herself when she left her at 9.30at the cross where Emily walked to get the taxi which can be seen on the CCTVs.
Ann Diamond story
Ann is a teacher who chatted to Emily in Dettons for almost half an hour, Ann said, she has spoken to Emily and Paige and said Emily was chatty. She left Emily at around 8.30 and stated clearly Emily was not drunk by any means.
The police basic forensic report
It says there is no detection of alcohol in her blood however backdated calculation suggested that Emily was at 157% in the first count and 81% at the second count. Drink driving limit is 80%.
The report assumes the maximum amount possible for alcohol concentration as it is assumed all the alcohol was absorbed by the body.
It also states alcohol can affect people in different way even the same person differently at different times.
• Because the report deals with concentration of blood the size of the subject is irrelevant.
• Emily is a student and according to Paige she drinks normally more when they go on a night out indicating that she is tolerant to alcohol meaning not new to alcohol (tolerant drinker in contrast to naiieve drinker who is new to alcohol).
• The amount of alcohol concentration in Emily’s blood can-not cause a complete and lasting blackout-out according to research especially when it was only drink driving limit, it might cause fragmented blackout where some of the details are forgotten.
• Emily did not experience any vomiting (there is no evidence of any), slurred speech etc.. or any signs of what a drunk people normally experience
• The methadone in her body even though it is at such a low concentration and would not have any effect on the night in question, but it shows that Emily have had methadone in the last few days before the incident, its has to have been before the incident but not on the night in question due to its low concentration, this will mean that Emily does not always tell the truth.
• Emily medical background did not show any problem whatsoever which can affect her memory.
Result
The above facts would clearly cast doubt on Emily claim that she can-not remember. There are other factors which could show Emily have not told the truth such as ……….. Suggesting that I was Scandinavian?? This like the difference between black and white!!.
Emily stated that she was wearing underpants, in fact she was not wearing any and the police could not find any,
also Emily claimed she always wear condom before having sex while her best friend Paige stated that Emily was left alone with a new guy in a house and told everybody in the next day that they had sex. The way it was described seems that unlikely Emily had used a condom.Small possibility
On the other hand if Emily were to be given the benefit of the doubt and assume she had experience a real and lasting total blackout (Amnesia). The scientific facts which is present everywhere in addition to the defence in-accurate forensic report states clearly.“Amnesia as result of alcohol commonly called “blackouts” is typically associated with rapid alcohol consumption especially in situations where the amounts consumed are in excess of what the individual is used to. Such amnesia does not mean that an individual would be incapacitated; it is known that individuals may be able to walk and talk whilst intoxicated, appearing to be reasonably coherent and yet subsequently they go on to experience little or no memory of events at that time”.ResultEven with the small possibility, Emily had experience Amnesia, neither her best friend Paige or the teacher Ann or I realised that, indicating, I would not be aware this is consistent with the audio and the video.
This is in direct contradiction with the second part of the charge. Showing clearly I was unaware if Emily truly experienced an amnesia. This clearly shows the second part of the charge can not be proven by the prosecution and therefore the case should have been dismissed.
An accurate forensic report might not need to be commissioned, however if it is it will only strengthen my position. This is to be decided if the court accepts a re-trial.
N.B. It is scientifically not possible to have an amnesia after only 2 glass of wine. Emily seems to have had that when she did not remember at all being in Liqure & co!!.Events inside the houseAfter we shut the house door, there were no witnesses only Emily and I, as Emily claim she can not remember nothing, what I say must be the truth as I g
Customer: replied 3 months ago.
Events inside the houseAfter we shut the house door, there were no witnesses only Emily and I, as Emily claim she can not remember nothing, what I say must be the truth as I gave an accurate detailed description in my police interview and my stories and timing is highly consistent with the police ANPR detection system and my car audio and the outward camera.
In addition, some unused material if it were to be requested, it could prove parts of the story. These are the finger prints carpet forensics and toilet seats forensics, all of which the police had taken. However, my solicitor did not request it despite being asked to do so.
In addition Emily the accuser reported no injuries, during sex she was stimulated enough to ejaculate, her ejaculation should be present on the mattress which still in police possession.
Note that Emily was only at the drink driving limit before I got back to the house, the house was unlocked. Emily had the choice and the ability to leave the house at any time. She only decided to leave at 5.00 Am.
In the absence of any video or audio inside the house one must look at all the surrounding circumstances and evidence, this shows clearly that, what happen in the house must be in agreement and Emily must have been aware.
Disclosure officer comment:
“The Disclosure Officer is of the view that this would seem to confirm the Defendant’s assertion that he left the house around 11.23pm.”
This correspond with my interview at the police station stating that we have had sex on the stairs for a short time 10 -20 min, and we then went upstairs and had sex full of cuddles few positions including woman on top for about an hour.
“Disclosure Officer is of the view that the footage from SM/1 seems to confirm the Defendant left the house twice as per his account on interview”,Looking at all the above where all the possibilities were considered, one can see that, there is no way an allegation of Rape by Emily would be verified and the matter does not even need to go before a jury. As even If her incapacity was in question my unawareness of the presence of such incapacity is clear, Emily story and statements contradictions is a clear indication that Emily does not always tell the truth. This is an additional factor to be added to the undisputed other evidence.
A detailed accurate comprehensive toxicology forensic report simulate exactly the condition at the time could prove Emily is a liar.
Ground 2 Appendices:
In Car conversation:
I was finishing the shift and going home to have a rest and come back to work later in two hours or so.
In the in car audio, it says, take me anywhere. At this point having sex is not on my mind, a girl with familiar face to me. Might need to be able to give me direction. So she sat in the front and I said you can give me directions.
Then she said again, take me anywhere in Cheshire for the second time making sure I got her point she followed that with. I will look after you. I still not sure what she meant and I thought it could be she ll give me a better fare although the meaning of she likes me have crossed my mind now.
We kept talking, I was not paying a lot of attention as my priority was to drive through the busy streets in the races safely, my car is big and the streets are small and full of people (Chester races).
Part of the conversation was to me asking her if she likes to go to my house as it was not far. She said yes. After that, she started exhibiting sexual behaviour such touching herself etc… this come across as she is so eager (horny) and can not wait to get to the house. Then we get of the car and entered my house.
Comments: I can not see anything wrong with that, she seemed fine, chatty, not drunk and it is her choice as much as mine to do what we like. She was not in any way vulnerable (she was a girl with her own opinion and choice).Both of us had the choice. I had finished work anyway and was going home to rest. (There was no reason for me to say no). as far as I am concerned. I have done nothing wrong, if I knew women can do that to men, I would have never agreed, now I do.
She had the capacity to show what she want. She was capable of making decisions (she wants it on the stairs etc….)
I use to get women on their own in the car all the time, most taxi drivers do. They ask to go home and they all got home. Emily as I explained did not ask to go home. If she had asked to go home at any point I would have taken her home without hesitation. (There is no exploitation or any evidence of any whatsoever as the prosecution were suggesting).
I treated her well, bought her food and made sure she is ok while she was in the house.
Facts and Opinion:
• Whatever the morality, people have casual sex. We all live in the real world.
• It wasn’t particularly moral behaviour – I cheated on my ex-girlfriend, however we were in a difficult stage where the relationship was on its way to end (the police had to be called twice). I
Customer: replied 3 months ago.
sorry I am happy to pay you 84 pounds, as I am using a mobile internet when I pressed accept it did not proccess it, I had to press no. please do it again when you can my internet is not very strong
Customer: replied 3 months ago.
ok, I value your opinion on my grounds of appeal as i ll be emailing them to the court today or tomorrow morning at the latest. thanks
Customer: replied 3 months ago.
the rest of the ground, I have not realised this piece was not copied
Customer: replied 3 months ago.
I treated her well, bought her food and made sure she is ok while she was in the house.
Facts and Opinion:
• Whatever the morality, people have casual sex. We all live in the real world.
• It wasn’t particularly moral behaviour – I cheated on my ex-girlfriend, however we were in a difficult stage where the relationship was on its way to end (the police had to be called twice). I described that in my interview with the police at the time this is a moral issue long way away for someone considered to be a rapist.
• The police had no evidence of how many times did we have sex. Why would I volunteer that information unless I was honest with the police? I was telling them the truth.
• The prosecution tried to make everything I did and said seem as sinister as possible. To the jaundiced eye, everything is yellow.
• The prosecution case is built around a myth.
• Memory blackout if true does not equal lack of capacity, lack of consent.
Expert:  Jo C. replied 3 months ago.

I'll just have a look at the above.

Expert:  Jo C. replied 3 months ago.

Sorry if I am missing the point but what is the evidence that proves her account cannot be true?

Customer: replied 3 months ago.
did you read all of it?
Expert:  Jo C. replied 3 months ago.

Yes, I'm not seeing anything so far?

These are just challenges that the jury I suppose rejected. That is not new evidence?

Customer: replied 3 months ago.
the evidence is the body of the text, mentioned witnessess, scientific facts,
Customer: replied 3 months ago.
the jury has not seen most of these as my solicitor did not present all of them my solicitor argument was too weak he did not have enough time to understand the case
Customer: replied 3 months ago.
Reasons in brief
• The prosecution only provided the last piece of evidence very close to the trial almost two month after they were ordered by the court to do so.• Judge Everett refused to transfer solicitors forcing a solicitor to defend me even though they did not want to, the defendant was not given all the available options.• This lead to a defendant who never been in trouble before with no choice but to bow to pressure as the judge threaten to remind him in custody if he choose any other option apart from the only solicitor. This is in direct contradiction with article 6 above.• The above lead to an inadequate representation by the duty solicitors and her appointed barrister which were forced to act on my behalf despite the objections of both of us. This led to two major mistakes and one other important one which took present in court during the trial resulting from the lack of complete understanding of the case by the newly appointed solicitor and barrister due to the lack of time which was a major factor in the wrong conviction.• The judge only gave two days for an already unprepared solicitor despite the solicitor claim to the contrary. The inadequacy manifest itself in court and eventually I took the consequences while every-one else went home and most likely they did not lose sleep over my wrong conviction. (Further details in the rest of the document).• The above is in direct contradiction with article 6 of the human rights act. In addition to the issue of the choice of defence an Adequate time was not given to the defendant to prepare the case. Whether the judge Everett in the mention hearing or the barrister thought the time given was adequate is irrelevant, both of which did not fully read and understood the case.• the effect of an incorrect ruling on one sided facts was to leave an accused with no legal escape from a verdict of guilty on those factsBrief of the first major mistake:
Barrister line of argument in presenting the no-case-to-answer-for:1- The prosecution responsibility is to provide proof that Emily had not consented
2- Emily after hearing the audio had admitted she must have consented.
3- The case is unsafe to go before the jury then there is no-case-to answer-for.ResultThis argument left the question of Emily did not have the capacity to consent unanswered
Judge decided there is a case to answer for and using the barrister line of argument the judge is correct.The line of argument should have been used if the barrister had the complete understanding1- The prosecution responsibility is to provide a proof for both parts of the charges ( 1-Emily did not consent and 2- the defendant was aware Emily did not consent).
2- Emily had admitted after hearing the audio that she must have consented
3- In the event that Emily did not have the capacity to consent meaning she had an amnesia (blackout) at the time. The defendant was unaware of that and the proof is:• Scientific fact: reported by an expert and backed by experts all around the world specialist in their field it is the toxicology forensic report.“Such amnesia does not mean that an individual would be incapacitated; it is known that individuals may be able to walk and talk whilst intoxicated, appearing to be reasonably coherent and yet subsequently they go on to experience little or no memory of events at that time”• Witnesses: Ann Diamond and Paige Meehan and myself. All of which reported that Emily was in control, all of which seen Emily directly before she got into the car only 10 minutes before she wanted to have sex.
o Ann left Emily at 8.30 stating Emily was by no means drunk.
o Paige Meehan stated that Emily was in control of herself immediately before getting into my car and only 8 minutes before Emily wanted to have sex.
o Myself who reported events in details in my interview at the police station at the time.Possible result. It is for the judge to decide, I could see a fair judge would dismiss the case as there is no-case-to-answer-for
Please to see a full description of the evidence and an analysis of the case which prove beyond reasonable doubt that Emily claim of rape can not be true is written in ground 2.Brief description of the second mistake
The facts sheet only included information which support the prosecution case, it did not include the information which is highly relevant despite my relentless and continuous instruction to my barrister to include it at all cost even if she had to put it before the judge, I thought she did. I was flabbergasted to find out later on she did not. The jury did not have all the relevant information to make a decision. The important fact which should be added is written below:
“Amnesia as result of alcohol commonly called “blackouts” is typically associated with rapid alcohol consumption especially in situations where the amounts consumed are in excess of what the individual is used to. Suc
Customer: replied 3 months ago.
The facts which should be added
**“Amnesia as result of alcohol commonly called “blackouts” is typically associated with rapid alcohol consumption especially in situations where the amounts consumed are in excess of what the individual is used to. Such amnesia does not mean that an individual would be incapacitated; it is known that individuals may be able to walk and talk whilst intoxicated, appearing to be reasonably coherent and yet subsequently they go on to experience little or no memory of events at that time”.Many other facts should be added such as the lack of previous convictions, Emily claim to have experienced a blackout only after 2 glasses of wine, but remembered all the other details until 8.30. and other contradictions.Most of the facts in the sheet represented the prosecution view. The judge directed the jury to adhere to their facts sheet. Now the jury have in front of them on paper: the indictment which is cleverly distorted as explained in grounds 5 and the facts sheet. These two documents mainly represent the prosecution point of view and its supporting facts only. With the judge directions to adhere to these documents meant the jury had to make their decision on mainly the prosecution point of view. All other evidence presented in the court in the form of witnesses, videos, audio and my barrister logic etc.. are less effective than the two piece of paper the jury had in their possession to take with them to deliberate.
N.B. Everything which has happen is beyond my control and it was not my decisions or my fault.
Customer: replied 3 months ago.
the above is the reason why my solicitor was not good and that is ground one.
Expert:  Jo C. replied 3 months ago.

These are not points that prove the allegation cannot be true.

A point of appeal is that your solicitors were negligent but that is nothing even remotely like being able to prove an offence did not occur.

On your other points, these are not issues of fresh evidence. They are challenges that could have been put and were rejected so they either fail or fall within point above.

Customer: replied 3 months ago.
ok these are fresh evidence.
Customer: replied 3 months ago.
Ground 3:
Fresh Evidence
There is a new development: Emily had reported to the Daily Mail, her drink might have been spiked in a statement to the Daily Mail in an article published the 14th of October 2016.
“She suspects that either her drink was spiked or Amari drugged her with the heroin substitute methadone”The possibility of her being drugged by methadone is none existent due to scientific and other facts, the prosecution did not suggest that at all, obviously their decision is based on the evidence available to them at the time. These leaves only the possibility that her drink was spiked according to her.This is a completely new evidence which was not considered either by the prosecution or the defence. This will require proper analysis and investigation, to start with:
• why does Emily the accuser think her drink was spiked,
• why she admitted this possibility now not at the time or for the last year and a half?,
• what type of material her drink was spiked with?,
• what is its effect?.
• how did that occur?
• Was it really a spike or was it something else taken by choice but afraid of mentioning it?
• Final question would be the impact of all these answers on the whole case
And all sort of other questionsThis fresh evidence can be believable as Paige her best friend said in court during her cross examination that, they left their drink unattended. In Liquer & co and Emily reported no memories of being in Liquer & co.This evidence if investigated has the potential to clearly explain some of the unexplained and unanswered questions which can shed some light on what did really happen.The evidence could not have been admitted in the proceedings as Emily just now suggested this possibility and in the accusation world it is a women world (meaning whatever the girl says the prosecution and courts seem to believe, there are numerous cases which demonstrate this fact such as Ched Evans case. It is sad however this is the reality).If Emily drink was spiked, then subject to answering the questions above and some more I guess would show that Emily wanted to have sex as a result of a strong instigator, I was the man available to her and I am not bad looking either. It would show Emily was not mainly under the influence of alcohol (she did not appear drunk as per the evidence in the audio, relevant CCTVs image, no forensic to show any signs of being drunk) she was under something else. Therefore it can render the current conviction unsafeDuring the trial we had acquired new evidence from questioning Emily, Paige and the prosecution statement.
• Emily said she had a flash-back that was not on her interview,
• Paige Meehan said, they left their drink unattended in Liquer & co also
• The amount of drink quoted by the prosecution and the defence own report is larger than the actual amount by almost 25%.
• The defence report is based on false information and lack the relevant analysis.
• Emily stated that she does not remember being in Liqure & co. after only having two glasses of wine.The new evidence in the Daily mail in addition to all the ones reported above combined will have had a detrimental impact on the whole case. Rendering the current conviction unsafeIn addition, relevant evidence from the unused material were not requested, (inadequacy of my legal team) if these evidence were requested it would have had a significant impact in terms of proving some of what happen inside the house meaning affirming my story. As the prosecution described it as a fantasy. That’s in addition to the Police ANPR detection system.Problems in courtThe hearing loop in the court was working, I and a juror had this problem. As I was behind a barrier, I could not be aware of what it was going on all the time. I recognise one of the jury. I request for her to be replaced, request were denied, later on through the trial I recognised another juror who I believe we might had a discussion or disagreement regarding the price, it was the woman who sat in the front writing notes. I did not mention this as the trial was in midway. I am not sure what effect this could have on the jury decision as I do not know the contribution of these two ladies to the decision. However, the verdict was a majority verdict so two persons might make the difference.The judge had directed the jury to adhere to the facts presented to them in the indictment and the facts sheet which mainly represented the prosecution point of view and its supporting facts. The main problem was in the facts were highly unbalanced and missing important facts as described in other grounds.
Finally: looking at similar case, the case of Ched Evans, the directions given by the judge are:
You should take the fact that he is a person of previous good character in his favour.
The judge said the jury must consider three questions when reaching their verdict:
1. Are you sure that when the defendant intent
Customer: replied 3 months ago.
1. Are you sure that when the defendant intentionally penetrated the vagina of the complainant she did not consent?
2. Are you sure the defendant did not genuinely believe that the complainant consented?
3. Are you sure that the defendant’s belief in the complainant’s consent was reasonable?
She told the jury to “take it step by step”.
If judge Landale gave the same directions then, the directions of the judge are appropriate, if not then it is inappropriate. Summing up might need to be examined.Evidence needed:
• Requesting some of the unused material to make additional proof to what happen in the house and compare it with my story.
• The fresh evidence mentioned are in the court transcript, were acquired during Emily cross examination and can be compared to Emily police interview.
• Court script of Paige interview.
• The Judge directions and summing up to be compared to the above.
• The indictment and the facts sheet
Customer: replied 3 months ago.
does the above count as a fresh evidence?
Expert:  Jo C. replied 3 months ago.

Yes, that is all very well but it is not fresh evidence.

The evidence you seek to rely on was served. It might have been served late but that is the nature of the beast now.

Customer: replied 3 months ago.
the mentioning that her drink might be spiked is completely new though
Customer: replied 3 months ago.
there are two other short grounds, not sure if they are good but i kept them anyway what do you think?
Customer: replied 3 months ago.
Ground 4 : An expert report was based on wrong information. Lack relevant and depth analysis.The defence forensic report is in-accurate.it is based on an incorrect information. There could be many reasons of the in-accuracy of the report including solicitors providing in-accurate, incomplete or wrong information. Please see my challenge to the report which was communicated to the solicitor and the barrister at the time more than once verbally and by email. See comments on the report in the appendices. This means an in-accurate information was provided to the court and the jury and accurate information was not provided both of which affected the trial negatively in my case. The forensic report is an important part of the case.
N.B. I had sent two emails to show my objection to the report and to be used. One when first was given to me and the other was during the trial in addition to a strong objections verbally more than once, however, it seems that, the barrister did not have time to read the first email and did not listen to any objection or instruction as she said ( she is running the case). The two emails are listed below:
Summary of Ground 4
the in-accurate report was used and shown to the prosecution and the judge. The judge said in answering the no-case-to-answer that the defence report said the capacity can only be decided by a jury. This was directly quoted from the report in question. Obviously there are other things were taken from the report such as the prosecution saying:‘this diminutive subject did experience anterograde amnesia, having probably consumed the equivalent of 2 bottles of wine’‘Alcoholic amnesia is principally of the Anterograde rather than the Retrograde type, and more likely in an alcoholic habitué than someone naïve to alcohol’.The first and the second inferences are a result of an analysis based on incorrect information therefore it is scientifically and practically invalid.Those were used by the prosecution and the judge indicating facts which only support the prosecution case from an in-accurate report, while facts from the same report which is only scientific facts based on research and quoted by a well know scientists in the field, this can only be true; it supports my case was not used and was not given to the jury despite my request to do so. Please see below:

“Such amnesia does not mean that an individual would be incapacitated; it is known that individuals may be able to walk and talk whilst intoxicated, appearing to be reasonably coherent and yet subsequently they go on to experience little or no memory of events at that time”This is again could be due to my unaware barrister, one might think that, the prosecution and my barrister might be collaborating. Obviously they are not, however the above and the way it was used make me confused as to determine what did really happen?. It is the most odd!First email expressing the problems with the report were sent as soon as it was received and a further smaller email was sent later. The second email is outlined below:For Ms Hammond consideration
“Bearing in mind all the above paragraphs, I consider it possible that this diminutive subject did experience anterograde amnesia, having probably consumed the equivalent of 2 bottles of wine, over 4 hour period, such that her blood alcohol level was about 157 mg%.
17. Moreover, given this BAC of 157 mg% and the evidence from both my own table and the table in the forensic toxicologist’s report, I consider that the subject would have experienced some loss of capacity to consent.
18. But given the subject’s likely tolerance to alcohol (given the alcohol dosing and the subject’s low BMI), the four-hour period of wine drinking, the element of uncertainty regarding the pharmacological effects in this specific subject of 157 mg% BAC, I am unable to be more precise than I have been in my paragraph 17 above.
The report based its calculation on 2 bottle of wine (1500 ml) drank by Emily in a period of 3.5 to 4.5 hours. This has produced a BAC of 157%.
This is inaccurate as if we were to take the scenario with the higher amount to drink which is Paige account. It can be realised that by a simple addition and by the estimation of Paige in the interview that Emily had only around 1000 (250 +250+ (third a bottle) 250+less than250 of the last bottle + a cocktail (cocktails in general have less effect due to the presence of caffeine in most types which cause an increase in alertness making the effect of alcohol far less prominent), in total according to Paige. just little under or equivalent to a bottle and a half. And this was for about 4.15 hours. According to Paige that was normal for Emily. Also the reported figure ignored that Emily drank lots and lots of water which should dilute the alcohol reducing its concentration.
Furthermore the report did not take into account the concentration of the alcohol used. This could be between 5% and 16%. Al
Expert:  Jo C. replied 3 months ago.

It depends what it goes to.

Generally speaking, you don't want rape complainants to have their drinks spiked as it tends to suggest lack of capacity.

Customer: replied 3 months ago.
Furthermore the report did not take into account the concentration of the alcohol used. This could be between 5% and 16%. Also the report ignores that Emily is a social drinker (according to Paige Emily was a second year student and she normally drink far more on a night out) who has tolerance to alcohol. (This information was not available at the time the report was written) She is in the stage where BAC of 200 % is needed to possibly induce a blackout. More than that is needed to cause a 9 hours blackout. Therefore her size is less relevant as what important is the BAC concentration.
Number 7 states that, rapid rise in BAC Could result in loss of memory, especially on an empty stomach because the presence of food in the stomach slows the absorption of alcohol, nausea and vomiting are associated in rapid rise in BAC two things Emily did not experience at all (there were no physical or reported evidence of neither). (This information was not available at the time the report was written)
Based on those fats alone it can be concluded that, this report is incorrect. And its conclusion that Emily could have experienced Amnesia and lost some capacity to consent is in doubt.
To ascertain the truth. Either a new report will need to be commissioned with the relevant facts preferably by a different expert or it can be relied on researches already done by a well-known organisations and scientists which are readily available.
Or a comparison of Emily drinking habits in terms of amount and its effects on a night out with that of her drinking habits socially would shed some light on the truth. Paige evidence in court could be a key factor in drawing such comparison.”
Evidence needed
• The in-accurate Defence toxicology report.
• Criticism of the to report
• Only part of the report which serves the prosecution case was used and added to the facts sheet. The fact which support the truth were omitted from the facts sheet.
• Comparison with the facts sheet which was presented to the jury.
Customer: replied 3 months ago.
ok, wouldnt that depends on the type fo drugs the drink was spiked with?
Expert:  Jo C. replied 3 months ago.

Well, either way it doesn't look good.

Spiking is not really something you want in a rape trial

Customer: replied 3 months ago.
ok I ll omit this fact what do you think of ground 4?
Expert:  Jo C. replied 3 months ago.

On the face of it that is not a point of appeal.

If you are saying that you have fresh expert evidence to the contrary which is in proper form then that is a point of appeal.

Just disagreeing with the current report is not.

Customer: replied 3 months ago.
ok, does that mean i need to instruct an expert to disagree with it, I was a scientist and i could back my critisism with evidence ?
Customer: replied 3 months ago.
these are two other short grounds what do you think of them?
Customer: replied 3 months ago.
Ground 5
Some evidence might have been deliberately omitted by the police in addition to an incorrect information and exaggeration was presented to the jury, Omitted information in the indictment.
• The prosecution is quoting incorrect information in court such as mentioning two bottle of wine instead of one and a half, this is an increase of 25%. Could have an impact on the jury perception in addition to the normal exaggeration.• The indictment display mislead information with regard to quoting some notes from PC Hein diary claiming that, I said I have met the accuser at 7 -8 pm, while I stated clearly in my interview that I met her at the time mentioned in the interview, when I asked about PC Hein book notes; I stated that most of it is correct, however the timing of the note is not as accurate PC Hein mentioned 7 -8, while it was after eight or close to nine or around about that. Aslo the location PC Hein mentioned it was the Cross in Chester while it was about 100 years from the Cross.I mentioned that clearly in my recorded interview with the police at the time. Only to realise that the prosecution had twisted this in the indictment to make it like I have said an incorrect information while I have not all is needed is for someone to look at recorded police interview to realise how the prosecution cleverly twisted the truth in their favour. Even PC Hein when questioned in court he did not mention any discrepancies.• Also There could be a lack of disclosure as the front camera footage were missing at 9.30 to 9.50 pm. Police said there were no footage, however the camera seems to be recording all the other time casting doubt on the police claim.• In court when the prosecution displayed the CCTVs town camera, they tried to omit the last 30 seconds saying that what left is irrelevant. My barrister did not object, later on I realised she was not even aware indicating she has not seen the video before going to court. I realised that while I was in court; I had to mention it to my barrister who in due course requested it to be seen in full.My solicitor refuse to question the point even though I asked to do that more than once verbally and in writing.Summary of Ground 5
This can indicate a dishonest and misleading practices were used by the police and the prosecution, my barrister was not ready and not prepared caused misinformation being presented without objection adding to the reasons why a wrong conviction was given.
Evidence needed• There is missing 10 minutes of Emily walking in front of the car, if this were to be seen it would show Emily walking steady from a very close range.
• My police recoded interview, the full version not the prosecution shortened one.
• Court transcript will show my barrister has never objected to anything.
• PC Hein cross examination in court.
Ground 6: important information was not presentThe accuser has contacted my ex-girlfriend two days after the incident, she had relayed different information which will have significant impact on the case. This was not mentioned at all in the hearing
I would like to question the police officer DC Melanie Taylor who was firstly in charge of the case before DC Helen Newman.
• How did Emily obtain Jane address is unknown.
All of these taken place before any video or audio evidence took place.
Evidence needed
• Texts, Communications from ***** *****, and cross-examination of witnesses and Emily Bradbury the accuser.
Customer: replied 3 months ago.
this is the last ground?
Expert:  Jo C. replied 3 months ago.

I'm really sorry but on the face of it these are just inconsistencies.

The only thing that may be of interest is the relay of different information but it is not particularly clear what is the different information.

Customer: replied 3 months ago.
Ground 7Contradictory and impossible facts such as:
• On the second count of rape I was found guilty. I would love to know how someone meaning the accuser which was left alone in the house which is unlocked who is on drink driving limit of 80 ml who claimed to have had non-consensual sex, could not remember that? Please how can that be possible!!
• The accuser admitted after hearing the audio and when was questioned that she must have consented. And I am able with the scientific evidence to prove that the accuser could not be unaware. I am able to present scientific research results etc… however for the purpose of courts acceptance I might need to instruct a detailed forensic report and provide the exact conditions and amounts of alcohol to an expert to produce the proper and correct analysis.• The accuser claimed, she was wearing an underpants, however she was not wearing any and the police could not find any.• The accuser claimed that she would normally not agree to sex without using condom, however in her best friends Paige statement, Paige stated that Emily once left in a house with someone she met for the first time and told everybody the next day they have had sex. Paige description indicate that it is likely they have not used condom.• The accuser claimed she had a blackout, she could not remember at all being in Liquer & co. she was in Liqure & co after only two glasses of wine. It is impossible to have blackout after drinking this modest amount. She remembers all the events after Liqure & co!! this must be a lie.• The accuser decided to make rape allegation and claimed she did not consent while she claimed she does not remember. She had the alleged flashback the night after.Summary of ground 7
This contradictions cast doubt on the accuser story and provide a proof she might not be telling the truth. I most likely be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accuser was not telling the truth at least not the whole truth. This is subject to instructing an accurate detailed forensic report.Evidence needed,
• similar evidence to ground 1, this can be inferred from the whole case. A new toxicology report might need to be commissioned to confirm the above.
• Emily interview stating that she was wearing an underpants, Police reporting there were no underpants found and the question was asked at my interview.
• PC Hein cross-examination in court.
• Emily cross examination alleging she had flashback the night after and admitting she must have consented.
Summary of all grounds
It can be realised there are so many evidence to suggest the case was not handled correctly resulting in convicting an innocent person. Therefore in the interest of justice I would like to ask you to permit the appeal so the case can be handled correctly this time and I am confident if it is handled correctly justice would prevail.
Customer: replied 3 months ago.
this is the last ground, now would th ecombinations of these grounds add any weight?
Customer: replied 3 months ago.
you are correct these are inconsistencies. would not these inconsistencies affect the credibility of the accuser and the CPS story?
Expert:  Jo C. replied 3 months ago.

these are just comments. They are not fresh evidence.

I think the trying to argue that she was too drunk to consent and trying to argue that she was too drunk to remember is not really helpful.

Customer: replied 3 months ago.
I am saying the contrary I am saying she was not too drunk, the prosecution saying that she was too drunk?
Customer: replied 3 months ago.
does ground 7 come across that i am saying she is too drunk?
Customer: replied 3 months ago.
i have adjusted the drink spike issue, I ll send it now to see if this is better?
Customer: replied 3 months ago.
Ground 3:
Fresh Evidence: this leads to an inconsistency in the accuser story.
There is a new development: Emily had reported to the Daily Mail, her drink might have been spiked in a statement to the Daily Mail in an article published the 14th of October 2016.
“She suspects that either her drink was spiked or Amari drugged her with the heroin substitute methadone”The possibility of her being drugged by methadone is none existent due to scientific and other facts, the prosecution did not suggest that at all, obviously their decision is based on the evidence available to them at the time. These leaves only the possibility that her drink was spiked according to her.This is a completely new evidence which was not considered either by the prosecution or the defence. This will require proper analysis and investigation, to start with:
• why does Emily the accuser think her drink was spiked.
• Why when Paige was asked before regarding leaving their drink unattended she replied, we were watching our drinks, no one had approached it.
• why she admitted this possibility now not at the time or for the last year and a half?,
• what type of material her drink was spiked with?,
• what is its effect?.
• how did that occur?
• Was it really a spike or was it something else taken by choice but afraid of mentioning it?
• Final question would be the impact of all these answers on the whole case
And all sort of other questionsThis fresh evidence can be believable as Paige her best friend said in court during her cross examination that, they left their drink unattended. In Liquer & co and Emily reported no memories of being in Liquer & co. However, this new admission by Emily could be added to other inconsistencies in Emily story she have had few additions such as the alleged flashback, the story which was told to ***** ***** my ex-girlfriend, the decision to make a rape allegation even though she alleged she did not remember and the denial of ever having methadone.
While my story is still the same as my recorded police interview. I would leave it to the reader to assess which story is more credible?This evidence if investigated has the potential to clearly explain some of the unexplained and unanswered questions which can shed some light on what did really happen.The evidence could not have been admitted in the proceedings as Emily just now suggested this possibility and in the accusation world it is a women world (meaning whatever the girl says the prosecution and courts seem to believe, there are numerous cases which demonstrate this fact such as Ched Evans case. It is sad however this is the reality).
Customer: replied 3 months ago.
hi Jo did you have the chance to read the last few lines?
Customer: replied 3 months ago.
Please see the latest modifications to ground 3 titled fresh evidence, I would love to know what you think now?
Customer: replied 3 months ago.
Ground 3:
Fresh Evidence
There is a new development: Emily had reported to the Daily Mail that she might have been drugged or her drink might have been spiked in a statement to the Daily Mail in an article published the 14th of October 2016.
“She suspects that either her drink was spiked or Amari drugged her with the heroin substitute methadone”The possibility of her being drugged by methadone is none existent due to scientific and other facts, the prosecution did not suggest that at all, obviously their decision is based on the evidence available to them at the time. These leaves only the possibility that her drink was spiked according to her; this is totally in contradiction with the statement of best friend Paige who said we were watching our drinks all the time, nobody had approached them.This is a completely new evidence which was not considered either by the prosecution or the defence. This will require proper analysis and investigation, to start with:
• why does Emily the accuser think her drink was spiked or she was drugged?,
• why she admitted this possibility now not at the time or for the last year and a half, is it because she had received new information and wants to save her skin?,
• what type of material her drink was spiked with if true?,
• what is its effect?.
• how did that occur?
• Was it really a spike or was it something else taken by choice but afraid of mentioning it?
• Final question would be the impact of all these answers on the whole case
And all sort of other questionsThe prosecution case all revolved around Emily stories which keep changing like the weather. This evidence if investigated has the potential to clearly explain some of the unexplained and unanswered questions which can shed some light on what did really happen.The evidence could not have been admitted in the proceedings as Emily just now suggested this possibility and in the accusation world it is a women world (meaning whatever the girl says the prosecution and courts seem to believe, there are numerous cases which demonstrate this fact such as Ched Evans case. It is sad however this is the reality).Subject to answering the questions above and some more I guess would show that Emily had changed her story more than once and made additions as the time goes along to perfect her accusation. (she did not appear drunk to three people, also the evidence in the audio, relevant CCTVs image, no forensic to show any signs of being drunk), Therefore it can render the current conviction unsafeDuring the trial we had acquired new evidence from questioning Emily, Paige and the prosecution statement.
• Emily said she had a flash-back that was not on her interview,
• The amount of drink quoted by the prosecution and the defence own report is larger than the actual amount by almost 25%.
• The defence report is based on false information and lack the relevant analysis.
• Emily stated that she does not remember being in Liqure & co. after only having two glasses of wine.The new evidence in the Daily mail in addition to all the ones reported above combined will have had a detrimental impact on the whole case. Rendering the current conviction unsafeIn addition, relevant evidence from the unused material were not requested, (inadequacy of my legal team) if these evidence were requested it would have had a significant impact in terms of proving some of what happen inside the house meaning affirming my story. As the prosecution described it as a fantasy. That’s in addition to the Police ANPR detection system.Problems in courtThe hearing loop in the court was working, I and a juror had this problem. As I was behind a barrier, I could not be aware of what it was going on all the time. I recognise one of the jury. I request for her to be replaced, request were denied, later on through the trial I recognised another juror who I believe we might had a discussion or disagreement regarding the price, it was the woman who sat in the front writing notes. I did not mention this as the trial was in midway. I am not sure what effect this could have on the jury decision as I do not know the contribution of these two ladies to the decision. However, the verdict was a majority verdict so two persons might make the difference.The judge had directed the jury to adhere to the facts presented to them in the indictment and the facts sheet which mainly represented the prosecution point of view and its supporting facts. The main problem was in the facts were highly unbalanced and missing important facts as described in other grounds.
Finally: looking at similar case, the case of Ched Evans, the directions given by the judge are:
You should take the fact that he is a person of previous good character in his favour.
The judge said the jury must consider three questions when reaching their verdict:
1. Are you sure that when the defendant intentionally penetrated the vagina of the
Customer: replied 3 months ago.
Are you sure that when the defendant intentionally penetrated the vagina of the complainant she did not consent?
2. Are you sure the defendant did not genuinely believe that the complainant consented?
3. Are you sure that the defendant’s belief in the complainant’s consent was reasonable?
She told the jury to “take it step by step”.
If judge Landale gave the same directions then, the directions of the judge are appropriate, if not then it is inappropriate. Summing up might need to be examined.Evidence needed:
• Requesting some of the unused material to make additional proof to what happen in the house and compare it with my story.
• The fresh evidence mentioned are in the court transcript, were acquired during Emily cross examination and can be compared to Emily police interview.
• Paige Meehan statement to the police.
• The Judge directions and summing up to be compared to the above.
• The indictment and the facts sheet
Customer: replied 3 months ago.
Hi Jo, I need to finish this matter today if possible as i need to send it today due to time restriction, are you working today?
Expert:  Jo C. replied 3 months ago.

Sorry, I was off yesterday.

I am not really sure I can advise on this. You are asking me to comment upon live grounds of appeal and I've had no vision of the case.

You will need to take advise from counsel or instruct a new one with proper vision of the papers. Question and answer sites are all very well but they not designed to replace proper informed advice.

Expert:  Jo C. replied 3 months ago.

On the face of it, these do not seem like grounds but then I have not had vision of the case.

Customer: replied 3 months ago.
ok, have you had the chance to read the modified part of the fresh evidence one, the one you mentioned that spikeing the drink was not in my favour?
Customer: replied 3 months ago.
the question and answers is good for me as all i need is to get few points. are you getting all my messages?
Expert:  Jo C. replied 3 months ago.

Yes. Usually.

Customer: replied 3 months ago.
he jo, are you still woeking as i need to get this finished. thanks
Expert:  Jo C. replied 3 months ago.

Yes, I'm here.

Customer: replied 3 months ago.
ok great, what did you think about modifying the spike issue?. it is written in last one titled ground 3 fresh evidence. I modifyed it little bit and make it like an addition which shows inconsistiency of the accuser story she keeps adding things while my story stay the same through out.
Customer: replied 3 months ago.
by the way, i appreciate your opinion it is helpful
Customer: replied 3 months ago.
hi jo where do you go, i would love to fiish this, only few questions left?

What Customers are Saying:

 
 
 
  • Thank you so much for your help. Your answers were really useful and came back so quickly. Great! Maggie
< Previous | Next >
  • Thank you so much for your help. Your answers were really useful and came back so quickly. Great! Maggie
  • A quick response, a succinct and helpful answer in simple English. I believe I can now confront the counter party with confidence -- worth the 30 bucks! Rick
  • Wonderful service, prompt, efficient, and accurate. Couldn't have asked for more. I cannot thank you enough for your help. Mary C.
  • This expert is wonderful. They truly know what they are talking about, and they actually care about you. They really helped put my nerves at ease. Thank you so much!!!! Alex
  • Thank you for all your help. It is nice to know that this service is here for people like myself, who need answers fast and are not sure who to consult. GP
  • I couldn't be more satisfied! This is the site I will always come to when I need a second opinion. Justin
  • Just let me say that this encounter has been entirely professional and most helpful. I liked that I could ask additional questions and get answered in a very short turn around. Esther
 
 
 

Meet The Experts:

 
 
 
  • Jo C.

    Jo C.

    Barrister

    Satisfied Customers:

    30316
    Over 5 years in practice
< Previous | Next >
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/EM/emus/2015-7-7_192327_bigstockportraitofconfidentfemale.64x64.jpg Jo C.'s Avatar

    Jo C.

    Barrister

    Satisfied Customers:

    30316
    Over 5 years in practice
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/BE/benjones/2015-12-1_0437_ennew.64x64.jpg Ben Jones's Avatar

    Ben Jones

    UK Lawyer

    Satisfied Customers:

    11553
    Qualified Solicitor - Please start your question with 'For Ben Jones'
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/BU/Buachaill/2012-5-25_211156_barrister5.64x64.jpg Buachaill's Avatar

    Buachaill

    Barrister

    Satisfied Customers:

    1754
    Barrister 17 years experience
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/JO/jojobi/2013-3-19_0265_maxlowryphoto.64x64.jpg Max Lowry's Avatar

    Max Lowry

    Advocate

    Satisfied Customers:

    894
    LLB, 10 years post qualification experience
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/UK/UKLawyer/2012-4-12_9849_F2.64x64.jpg UK_Lawyer's Avatar

    UK_Lawyer

    Solicitor

    Satisfied Customers:

    750
    I am a qualified solicitor and an expert in UK law.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/KA/Kasare/kasare.64x64.jpg Kasare's Avatar

    Kasare

    Solicitor

    Satisfied Customers:

    402
    Solicitor, 10 yrs plus experience in civil litigation, employment and family law
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/OS/osh/2015-7-7_19268_gettyimagesb.64x64.jpg Joshua's Avatar

    Joshua

    Lawyer

    Satisfied Customers:

    8199
    LL.B (Hons), Higher Prof. Dip. Law & Practice
 
 
 

Related Law Questions