Interestingly the first time I’ve seen any details about what Lord Lake actually did wrong comes from a DM article:
>But Hogg’s lawyer, Donald Findlay, KC, told judges Lady Dorrian, Lord Matthews and Lord Pentland at the Court of Criminal Appeal yesterday that his client had been being wrongly convicted.
>Mr Findlay said Lord Lake did not properly follow the correct legal procedures used in Scotland to establish the guilt of a rapist.
>The defence lawyer told the court that the complainer whose evidence led to Hogg’s conviction had to have her account of being sexually assaulted corroborated.
>Mr Findlay said Lord Lake told jurors in his legal directions that the complainer’s evidence could be corroborated by an account of a man who said that she appeared ‘distressed’ following the incident which led to Hogg’s conviction.
>The lawyer told the court that it was wrong for Lord Lake to have told the jurors this.
>He said the witness’s account of ‘distress’ could not corroborate the complainer’s account.
>Mr Findlay said: ‘My submission is that the jury were misdirected by the trial judge and it pains me to say this but there has been a very significant miscarriage of justice at the hands of the judge.’
Always a shame when someone potentially gets away with a crime because of someone in the justice system fucking up and letting them off on a techicality.
Largely unrelated but are the articles calling him a rapist now libelous? Just noticed the headlines below this article still refer to him as a rapist.and was curious.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Another example of the judicial system being utterly unfit for purpose in this country.
I have to question whether or not the original sitting judge, Lord Lake, will be held to account for his malpractice, although I think I already know the answer.
Why is it rape when it’s a man, yet for women it is had sex with?
So essentially, the presiding judge told the jury that the alleged victim could be corroborated when in fact they did not know for a certainty that they could be?
9 comments
Interestingly the first time I’ve seen any details about what Lord Lake actually did wrong comes from a DM article:
>But Hogg’s lawyer, Donald Findlay, KC, told judges Lady Dorrian, Lord Matthews and Lord Pentland at the Court of Criminal Appeal yesterday that his client had been being wrongly convicted.
>Mr Findlay said Lord Lake did not properly follow the correct legal procedures used in Scotland to establish the guilt of a rapist.
>The defence lawyer told the court that the complainer whose evidence led to Hogg’s conviction had to have her account of being sexually assaulted corroborated.
>Mr Findlay said Lord Lake told jurors in his legal directions that the complainer’s evidence could be corroborated by an account of a man who said that she appeared ‘distressed’ following the incident which led to Hogg’s conviction.
>The lawyer told the court that it was wrong for Lord Lake to have told the jurors this.
>He said the witness’s account of ‘distress’ could not corroborate the complainer’s account.
>Mr Findlay said: ‘My submission is that the jury were misdirected by the trial judge and it pains me to say this but there has been a very significant miscarriage of justice at the hands of the judge.’
Always a shame when someone potentially gets away with a crime because of someone in the justice system fucking up and letting them off on a techicality.
Largely unrelated but are the articles calling him a rapist now libelous? Just noticed the headlines below this article still refer to him as a rapist.and was curious.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Another example of the judicial system being utterly unfit for purpose in this country.
I have to question whether or not the original sitting judge, Lord Lake, will be held to account for his malpractice, although I think I already know the answer.
Why is it rape when it’s a man, yet for women it is had sex with?
So essentially, the presiding judge told the jury that the alleged victim could be corroborated when in fact they did not know for a certainty that they could be?