A thread for examples of "a trial rendered invalid through an error in the proceedings".
In this case of Paratroopers being put on trial for the fatal shooting of an unarmed IRA member in 1972, the trail has collapsed because of the interview evidence of the Paras.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-56942056
"Soldiers A and C, both in their 70s, had pleaded not guilty. The men admitted firing shots but said they had acted lawfully when doing so.
Both soldiers were interviewed by a police legacy unit, the Historical Enquiries Team (HET), in 2010 and it was this evidence that formed a substantial part of the prosecution's case."
Back in 1972, the two Paras were required to provide statements, which were done so not under any caution. Those statements were then used in the 2010 interview, where the police basically asked the soldiers if they agreed with the 1972 statements, they said yes and those statements were submitted as evidence.
"However, the judge said it was not legitimate to put the 1972 evidence before the court "dressed up and freshened up with a new 2010 cover".
He questioned why the HET's re-examination did not prompt a fresh investigation by the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), with the veterans interviewed under caution.
The judge suggested that course of action might have made a prosecution more sustainable."
All it needed was for the PSNI to caution the Paras and then reinterview them using the 1972 statements following the most up to date procedures, recognising the Para's rights. They failed to do so, the prosecution did not request an interview under caution and now, since the Para's will certainly give "no comment" interviews if reinterviewed, the trial has ended. Even the daughter of the IRA man recognised the failure by the police and prosecution and that the Para's should have been given their rights.
In this case of Paratroopers being put on trial for the fatal shooting of an unarmed IRA member in 1972, the trail has collapsed because of the interview evidence of the Paras.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-56942056
"Soldiers A and C, both in their 70s, had pleaded not guilty. The men admitted firing shots but said they had acted lawfully when doing so.
Both soldiers were interviewed by a police legacy unit, the Historical Enquiries Team (HET), in 2010 and it was this evidence that formed a substantial part of the prosecution's case."
Back in 1972, the two Paras were required to provide statements, which were done so not under any caution. Those statements were then used in the 2010 interview, where the police basically asked the soldiers if they agreed with the 1972 statements, they said yes and those statements were submitted as evidence.
"However, the judge said it was not legitimate to put the 1972 evidence before the court "dressed up and freshened up with a new 2010 cover".
He questioned why the HET's re-examination did not prompt a fresh investigation by the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), with the veterans interviewed under caution.
The judge suggested that course of action might have made a prosecution more sustainable."
All it needed was for the PSNI to caution the Paras and then reinterview them using the 1972 statements following the most up to date procedures, recognising the Para's rights. They failed to do so, the prosecution did not request an interview under caution and now, since the Para's will certainly give "no comment" interviews if reinterviewed, the trial has ended. Even the daughter of the IRA man recognised the failure by the police and prosecution and that the Para's should have been given their rights.
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3ehnJct
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire