Blog entry 3rd December 2020
Last month my case worker informed me that my application to be referred to a single judge for consideration. This is stage 2 of 3 in the appeal against conviction process.
First of all my case worker will finalize her report. That is then sent to the prosecution for them to comment upon. I will then be given the opportunity to make any rebuttal of the prosecutions comments that I feel is applicable or necessary. Once that is all done then a date will be set for the single Court of Appeal judge to review everything. This judge will then decide whether or not to refer my case for a full appeal hearing before 3 judges.
I am of course heartened by this positive development, but remain measured and cautious. However, it will be interesting to see how the prosecution try and explain why significant forensic and alibi evidence vital to my defence case was not disclosed at my trial. More so as when I have requested disclosure of these materials post-trial the police and CPS have been either obstructive, point blank refused to respond, or said that they would only disclose these withheld materials should I be granted an appeal; thus confirming said materials existence.
Worrying though, was a recent article in the Times newspaper. This has revealed that despite an absolute legal requirement for police forces to retain evidence for 30 years in criminal convictions over 90% do not. I now wonder if when the police and CPS have refused to disclose evidence that should have been disclosed at my trial, if it is because they have destroyed them despite being required by law to retain them until at least the year 2030. Should this be the case I shall be asking the Court of Appeal to take extreme adverse inference.
Well, hopefully 2021 will see significant moves forward in the fight against Covid. I also hope that Britain wakes up to the disastrous government it has been enduring under the current Conservative regime. How anyone thinks that Boris Johnson and Priti Patel have any credibility is beyond me.
Johnson will say whatever he believes needs to be heard by the voting public and then do the complete opposite. This is best exemplified by his claims one week that he would not tolerate bullying. The very next week it emerges that he tried to suppress and have altered the report that found Priti Patel to have bullied staff in her department.
Patel of course failed to recognize her guilt for her actions. Yes, she appeared on TV issuing an 'apology' statement. However, anyone who listened carefully or examined what she actually said will realise that she never once actually said sorry for her actions. Instead, she apologized if her staff felt she had acted inappropriately. Effectively inferring that her staff were at fault for misinterpreting her bullying behaviour! This is the person Johnson is protecting and defending. As with Dominic Cummings, Patel should have been dismissed from her position immediately.
Of course, it's not like the Tories aren't renowned for protecting their own. I mean, a Tory minister wouldn't award a PPE production contract to someone with no previous experience in this field, just because they had a close personal and social connection to them. No. Hold on, yes they would... Enough said.