http://www.mirror.co.uk

Paedo let off after jury numbers error
by Mark Smith

A man found guilty of sexually abusing a four-year-old girl had his conviction quashed yesterday after an appeal court ruled too many women were on the trial jury.

John Brown, 50, was jailed for two years after a jury of 12 women and three men found him guilty of indecent offences against the girl from age four to nine.

Brown's legal team called for the trial at Glasgow's Sheriff Court to be postponed until there was a full panel of 60 jurors to choose from. On the day there were just 22 jurors available - 15 women and seven men.

Brown's team argued that the trial would be unfair because of the selection and make-up of the jury.

But judge Sheriff Andrew Normand rejected their motion and Brown, from Glasgow, was found guilty of lewd, indecent and libidinous practices on 14 January 2004. He was placed on the Sex Offender's Register and spent a period in prison before being released on interim bail pending the outcome of his appeal.

Yesterday three appeal court judges at Perth Sheriff Court overturned the ruling. Lord Gill, Lord Justice Clerk, said: "The ballot was unsatisfactory and the sheriff should have recognised that."

But the decision sparked fury last night, with SNP Justice spokesman Kenny MacAskill saying: "This smacks of political correctness gone mad."

The Crown can lodge an appeal against the ruling.

Kirk
"Lets take this bull by the horns and swing it about a bit" - Kirk

Whoa, what next!
The crown should have a right to a retrial also.

Two years is a small sentence for ruining this girls life, but what do judges know.

I dont think the people will let this one go,

ste

I could not find that story in the link!

Try this one

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/55361.html

Ha,
the Crown can ask for a retrial.

"The judges quashed the guilty verdict, but granted a request by the Crown to bring a fresh prosecution against Mr Brown".

The crown could not appeal the ruling made by four judges, but can go for retrial, they already have the evidence from before, so it would only be the cost of a new trial.

He may even be awarded a stiffer sentence,

ste

That's the trick of the whole thing. By asking for a retrial the guy could end up spending even more time in jail.

Larry

Larry

Very true, other reports have suggested that this guys human rights were infringed yet again.

I wish they would take our human rights as seriously.

Kirk

"Lets take this bull by the horns and swing it about a bit" - Kirk

I think we should put the human rights issue to one side, the laws enshrined in it are ones that we need to keep our privacy etc.

He would have argued that his trial was not fair under human rights law, the judges would have had to uphold and enshrine an individuals right to have a fair trial.

The Government is obliged by these laws which are above our own laws, but that can be good rather than bad.

If enough of the abuse victims got together, they could push for better care and help to keep them employed, free drugs and better treatment than is available today - very little,

ste

Ste

"I think we should put the human rights issue to one side".

Why?


ARTICLE 3
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Im talking about the inhuman and degrading treatment.

"the laws enshrined in it are ones that we need to keep our privacy etc."

Yeah? You try reciting that when you have a load of journalists on your doorstep, believe me its the furthest thing from your mind

If its good for the goose its good for the gander.

Kirk
"Lets take this bull by the horns and swing it about a bit" - Kirk

Kirk, Ste,

This exchange is useful and confronts me with a real dilemma. Surely the rights of the individual are important; when these are violated that is the thin edge of the wedge and bad news for all of us.

I just have trouble with this when it comes to abusers - and not because I am a survivor. The point is that child abuse is a serial crime and perps often have large numbers of victims.

So the question is this: Are the rights of an individual to be overthrown or encroached upon if the welfare of (probably) many children is at stake?

Just throwing that out onto the table.

Larry

Larry

I posted some figures for my original abuser Chris Denning a few threads back but here they are again.

He was first convicted and jailed in Germany for distrbuting porn in 1958. I was introduced to him in 1970 and his routine was in full flow. When I was visiting him he was "entertaining" three boys (at the very least) a day. Invaribly when I turned up there would be one there and when I left there would be another who had just arrived. I am hopeless at maths but breaking it down to raw figures, it goes something like this.
We are talking possible offences here:

365 x 3 = 1095
1970 - 2006 = 36 years
36 x 1095 = 39,420

Even taking away time spent in prsion that still works out to apprx 37,000 offences. If he was succesful with only 50% of his victims that means around 18000 boys that could be walking around damaged. I know of one possible suicide because of Dennings actions, how may more have died by bottle, needle or rope?

Now I am collating figures from 1970 I suspect he was very much active in 1958.

And his defence team are arguing that HIS human rights have been infringed.

Something is seriously wrong somewhere.

Kirk
"Lets take this bull by the horns and swing it about a bit" - Kirk