|
SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Presiding over, but not necessarily altogether happy with the way his Kingdom is going.
In the UK, there is no automatic right of appeal, contrary to popular belief. Instead, a single judge goes through the papers and decides without hearing the merits of the case, if there is merit, and can tick a box on the form to say that if the potential appellant, appeals, he will lose time served.
The High Court failed to provide transcripts of the medical testimony of Dr Liebenberg, thus refusing the defence, the opportunity of mounting any kind of appeal based on her misleading the Jury.
Single judges who work with the State to maintain the impression that the justice system is working, use their filtration powers, to massage figures. In return for which, they are knighted.
In this case, Mr Holland deliberately ticked the box, and then smudged it, to make it look as though the tick had been rubbed out. Victor could not be sure, so wrote to the appeal barrister and the court of appeal, seeking clarification. That clarification was never provided, thus no supported appeal could be lodged. Instead, Victor lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights, where his Article 6 right to a fair hearing had been violated. All was proceeding well in the European court, until Victor found that the CCRC had referred to near identical cases to the Court of Appeal, which is when he obtained an independent medical report, saying that Dr Liebenberg had misled the Jury.
Instead of accepting this new evidence in 2012, the European Court knocked out his four year mature application, because he had a potential way forward in the UK, except that, the CCRC would block any application for review that Victor would make.
Briony would now be some thirty-three years old, at time of writing.
NOTE: The complainant's name has been changed to protect her identity, in her forward life. As with the names of her immediate family. This was at the request of the victim, who is known as Victor von Woolfe in this docu-drama based on real events. In recognition, that he called off an engagement to the complainant's mother, and perhaps, should not have proposed, to raise expectations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Where a breakdown in a relationship or a domestic grievance turns into a devastatingly weaponized false allegation—is the nightmare scenario for any defense lawyer, and it lies at the absolute center of debates around reforming sexual offenses law. In this case, Julian Dale and Tim Stirmey, had no stomach for putting up a fight, with very limited legal aid funding to carve up, it appears that instead of challenging the medical evidence, they just took what cash they could, and sold their client down the river. Allegedly. You can make up your mind, as your read and review the evidence for yourselves.
Although pure fiction, Fatal Attraction, The Fugitive, and Double Jeopardy are three films that spring to mind.
...
REFERENCE
https://
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please use our MORAL COMPASS to navigate this story, or revisit our LANDING PAGE
|
