Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Miranda Grell: Quibbling, "Transcript" Vs "Court Notes"

Interesting post and comments here from Mark Pack on Lib Dem Voice. Mark is taking someone to task for wrongly and repeatedly using the term "transcript" when referring to the "court clerk's notes" in the Miranda Grell case. Unfortunately they also slightly misdirect on the matter of how to obtain a copy of the same.

By the same token one of Mark's colleagues gives a load of evidence based on what happens in the case of voluntary magistrates sitting. This case was heard by a "Stipe" or as they are now termed District Judge so that's a mistake too I think. I continue to encourage Lib Dems to support the fact that our legal system has the right or the leave to appeal within it.

As shown in the Lesley Molseed murder trial, which ended yesterday, even the most serious investigations and trials stuff up from time to time. I support appeals in theory and in practice. I hope that reasonable and mature members and supporters of other parties come to feel likewise.

UPDATE 12:03: Andy Mayer has agreed in a comment here that he does indeed support the appeal process. He believes other Lib Dems may also support that appeal process. I confess myself mightily relieved.


Anonymous said...

Thank god you've clarified your line there.
The world of jurisprudence will sleep easily.

Chris Paul said...

God and jurisprudence do not come into it.

Anonymous said...

One of the reasons that you have a right to appeal and seek that the bench 'state a case' for the purposes of an appeal from a decision of a Magistrates Court is that the decisions made by the Magistrates Court is 'summary' justice. If my memory serves me correctly, there will be no 'transcript' and the Magistrate is or Magistrates are required to 'state the case' for the purposes of the appeal.

Again, if memory serves me correctly, at the appeal, the only 'evidence' of the decision is the 'case stated'; notes of Counsel and court clerk will not ordinarily be accepted as a substitute.

To compensate for difficulty, there is a right to an appeal and at the appeal the case is re-heard - as opposed to other appeals which are said to be 'true' appeals in that you have to establish that an error of law or a significant error in a finding of fact.

As to Ms Grell's case - to be honest, the less said the better ...

Anonymous said...

Sorry my grammar seems to have gone out the window ... I pressed the publish button before preview. But the meaning is there ...

Chris Paul said...

Thanks Evan ... interesting that this is in effect a new trial, because the law recognises that magistrate's courts even with DJs are flakey!

But when you say: "As to Ms Grell's case etc" what do you mean? Do you know something that has not been reported?

What has been reported as far as I know adding up to an admission of one conversation that was unwise but not likely to result in conviction. Plus some accusations of further conversations - vehemently denied - from persons who are not what one would call well wishers and have some history of being erratic.

Essentially "he said, she said".

Or do you simply mean that as the matter is about to be tried again it is prudent to say as little as possible?

Anonymous said...

I know that newspaper reports of cases are almost always inaccurate and that the result is that I won't comment on individual cases.

As it stands, unless and until an appeal succeeds, she has been found guilty.