Updated Appeal Dismissed - Truth of Rayney murder mystery to come to light..?

[Donners]

I'm pretty sure the prosecution can only appeal on matters of law such as if bad evidence had been allowed. Any decision based on the facts cannot be appealed, just like it couldn't be appealed in a jury trial (i think.).

Either way, even if the DPP did find something to appeal on, I doubt it would change the final verdict given how flimsy the prosecution case was.

Presumably an error of law would be the only basis of an appeal - as you suggest, improper admission/exclusion of evidence being one example. If it's treated like discretionary decisions are here, then you're right, it wouldn't simply be a matter of factual interpretation.

It's still more than one would normally get from a jury acquittal, which could be based on a non/mis-application of the law, or influence from a particularly unbalanced judicial charge, for instance.

 

[Donners]

Oh yes, heaven forbid the members of the jury should use their own brains. I'm not aware that the definition of reasonable doubt has been laid down in stone, so it becomes a matter of consideration for the jury after deliberating as a group. The way it was always intended.
The outcome in a trial by jury could easily be different to a judge only trial, considering the determination of reasonable doubt is based upon reason and common sense. In my experience, the people who have risen through the system to hold office at the level required to determine such cases are usually devoid of one or both of these qualities.

I never said that they could not use their own brains. Nor that reasonable doubt is defined. But if the process of "reason and common sense" here leads to a conviction regardless of the obvious flaws in the investigation and the prosecution case as found by the judge, then I query whether that is an appropriate application of "reasonable doubt", and wonder just how long the conviction would last. If the judge's findings are wrong, then I look forward to an explanation which establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The outcome in a trial by jury could easily be different to a trial by differently-composed jury. That does not necessarily make either outcome unjust; the system is inherently arbitrary, especially in a circumstantial case such as this. At least this way there are published reasons for the outcome which can be analysed and criticised.

Perhaps you should declare which part of the legal system you're involved with so I can make a determination of where your bias lies.

If you require a declaration, it can't be a particularly strong bias. In contrast:

The system is totally stuffed, and the convicted murderer who left a cigarette butt outside the Rayney's home
was probably drinking champagne with the rest of them at the after party.

The outcome in a trial by jury could easily be different to a judge only trial, considering the determination of reasonable doubt is based upon reason and common sense. In my experience, the people who have risen through the system to hold office at the level required to determine such cases are usually devoid of one or both of these qualities.

Really? I judeged him guilty after hearing the evidence. I still thought he'd get off though. No surprises there.

Incidentally, you did not "hear the evidence" unless you were in court for the duration of the trial. Titbits from the media and a summary from the judge do not amount to "the evidence."

 

[Reginald Perrin]

Incidentally, you did not "hear the evidence" unless you were in court for the duration of the trial. Titbits from the media and a summary from the judge do not amount to "the evidence."

Thanks for the confirmation that you are a lawyer by making a major issue out of a generalisation.

I heard some of the evidence through various media outlets which cater for people who have auditory capabilities. I also read the available material. Substitute "hearing" for "considering" with my consent and add "available" between "the" and "evidence" if you feel it necessary to validate my previous statement.

I'm just a regular Joe Average, but I've seen enough of the legal system in action, up to and including the WA Supreme Court, to make a value judgement of my own.

I'm pretty sure you legal bods haven't managed to outlaw personal opinion quite yet.

 

[forwardflanker]

I'm pretty sure you legal bods haven't managed to outlaw personal opinion quite yet.

Actually I think they have. It's called holding a judge only trial

 

[Max Rockatansky]

I followed this case very closely and thought all along that he was innocent and would be found not guilty. Very glad that a judge was used in this case looking at Belnakor's and other comments.

I followed this case very closely and thought all along that he did it and would be found guilty. Very annoyed that a judge was used in this case looking at JimDocker's and other comments

 

[Malifice]

I'm just a regular Joe Average, but I've seen enough of the legal system in action, up to and including the WA Supreme Court, to make a value judgement of my own.

Sorry bro, but sweeping comments about our legal system like this s**t me to tears.

I'll happily conceed that our system could be better in a lot of ways, and while mistakes are occasionally made, your assertations of 'not trusting the legal system', or seeping allegations of entrenched bias and institutional incompetence are utter utter bullshit.

In fact I put to you that the Australian Legal System is (arguably) amongst most effective, most just and most transparent legal systems in the history of human existence.

And I'm not just talking about 90% of the world in China, SE Asia, Latin America, Africa, India, Central Asia and so forth (and I challenge you to try your luck with their legal systems) but also fellow Common Law Jurisdictions like the USA (where obscene perversions of justice like the 'three strikes rule', and semi-regular executions of the innocent are par for the course).

No system is perfect, and human error is always a factor, but perverse court findings, aquittals or convictions would account for literally 0.0001% of all hearings before the courts. For every Maynard or Chamberlain (who were both eventually released) there are tens of thousands of cases where the Judge/ Jury get it right. Despite your assertions, our prisons are not teeming with the innocent, and our streets are not filled with the guilty.

If anything, this case highlights the transparency, fairness and accountability of our legal system FFS.

 

[The_Reaper]

I'll happily conceed that our system could be better in a lot of ways, and while mistakes are occasionally made, your assertations of 'not trusting the legal system', or seeping allegations of entrenched bias and institutional incompetence are utter utter bullshit.

.

Some of us in WA have trouble separating the justice system with the DPP and the WA police.

Where such assertations are not bullshit.

 

[Malifice]

Some of us in WA have trouble separating the justice system with the DPP and the WA police.

Where such assertations are not bullshit.

Bro, my name appears on the WA Supreme Court Roll of Practitioners.

Ive dealt with WAPOL and the WA DPP on a number of occasions, and I share your concerns. The 'conviction at all costs' mentality of WAPOL is seriously tapped. The WA Supreme Court have been scathing of both instiutions on a number of occasions (including I may add in this particular matter).

They do need to get their s**t together.

 

[blackcat]

I am waiting for the Trial By Australian Story.

They usually do a bang up job on WA legal shenanigans.

Will Geraldine introduce?

 

[Reginald Perrin]

Sorry bro, but sweeping comments about our legal system like this s**t me to tears.

Just giving my honest opinion based on personal experience. But, as you say, we have to watch out for those sweeping comments.

In fact I put to you that the Australian Legal System is (arguably) amongst most effective, most just and most transparent legal systems in the history of human existence.

Oh dear, are the tears flowing, or just the s**t?

 

[Malifice]

Oh dear, are the tears flowing, or just the s**t?

Name a better, more transparent, less corrupt or more just legal system currently (or historically) in existence.

For any you can find, I'll happily name you 20 worse ones.

Our system aint perfect, but its certainly not the crapola you claim it to be.

 

[blackcat]

Name a better, more transparent, less corrupt or more just legal system currently (or historically) in existence.

For any you can find, I'll happily name you 20 worse ones.

Our system aint perfect, but its certainly not the crapola you claim it to be.

and Perth isn't the best example of our system hehhehhe

 

[Donners]

Thanks for the confirmation that you are a lawyer by making a major issue out of a generalisation.

I heard some of the evidence through various media outlets which cater for people who have auditory capabilities. I also read the available material. Substitute "hearing" for "considering" with my consent and add "available" between "the" and "evidence" if you feel it necessary to validate my previous statement.

I'm just a regular Joe Average, but I've seen enough of the legal system in action, up to and including the WA Supreme Court, to make a value judgement of my own.

I'm pretty sure you legal bods haven't managed to outlaw personal opinion quite yet.

Given that my profile lists my occupation as 'solicitor', that feat of deduction was unnecessary. Describing a two-sentence aside as a 'major issue' is what we 'legal bods' refer to as 'gilding the lily'. It's often used to deflect from the substance of a point, and it seems that is the case here.

Personal opinions are not outlawed, but it is lucidrous to suggest they have equal merit. Your position is akin to a climate change denier asserting a vague conspiracy between scientists and governments and expecting to be taken seriously by an experienced scientist.

Joe Average is entitled to have an opinion, but when it comes from an obvious position of bias, is expressed through generalisations and is defended by puffery rather than substance, it becomes apparent after a while that it's just not worthy of attention.

 

[Reginald Perrin]

Not worthy of attention, yet worthy of a response? Great way to argue your case.

I wasn't interested enough to look up your profile, but thanks for the confirmation all the same.

 

[blackcat]

Personal opinions are not outlawed, but it is lucidrous to suggest they have equal merit. Your position is akin to a climate change denier asserting a vague conspiracy between scientists and governments and expecting to be taken seriously by an experienced scientist.

Joe Average is entitled to have an opinion, but when it comes from an obvious position of bias, is expressed through generalisations and is defended by puffery rather than substance, it becomes apparent after a while that it's just not worthy of attention.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan “You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.”

 

[blackcat]

Daniel Patrick Moynihan “You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.”

aka the News Unlimited controvertible axiom. Down is white. Black is up. Windschuttle is deified at Cape Canaveral.

 

[Kram]

Appearing while drunk
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VLPT/1998/19.html

That's pretty funny.

 

[Admiral Byng]

The NSW office of the DPP have launched an apple.

 

[Underdog]

The NSW office of the DPP have launched an apple.

Out of a spud gun?

 

[blackcat]

Out of a spud gun?

Australian Story have an upcoming feature on apple cider. It is becoming quite the drink. Loads of appeal for the punters and hipsters alike

 

[Upton Sinclair]

That's pretty funny.

When searched at the Police Station he had upon his person a small “Smirnoff” bottle which contained vodka according to the practitioner and contained methylated spirits according to Senior Constable Birmingham. It contained slightly less than a full capacity of fluid.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

Appeal began here yesterday - prosecution arguing that the trial judge was too quick to dismiss circumstantial aspects of the case like the place card with Rayney's name on it found in Kings Park.

 

[Brown Bottle]

Describing a two-sentence aside as a 'major issue' is what we 'legal bods' refer to as 'gilding the lily'. It's often used to deflect from the substance of a point, and it seems that is the case here.

Are you proposing that Chief should rename this site? Or maybe just the "Hot Topics" board?

Either way, you described most of what passes as "debate" on BF

 

[Power Raid]

This was the most bizarre court case.

The media had decided he was guilty very early in the piece. I am surprised they were so confident in their opinions.

 

[JimDocker]

This was the most bizarre court case.

The media had decided he was guilty very early in the piece. I am surprised they were so confident in their opinions.

Quite a few posters on here held that view too and I could never understand that.