Theodolite Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 (edited) Fair point. Edited January 27, 2011 by Theo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian rush Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 The fact that you have to acknowledge that as a 'fair point' shows how much your opinion on these matters really ought to be valued Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theodolite Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 You couldn't resist it though. Ian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian rush Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 You couldn't resist it though. Ian. Ouch. You win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theodolite Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 You bastard... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 The legal reasoning behind the justification for the length of sentence for Trevor Baines in respect of his first convictions is now available as the Court of Appeal judgement has been posted on the Courts web site http://www.judgments.im/Content/J1106.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted February 17, 2011 Author Share Posted February 17, 2011 The legal reasoning behind the justification for the length of sentence for Trevor Baines in respect of his first convictions is now available as the Court of Appeal judgement has been posted on the Courts web site http://www.judgments.im/Content/J1106.htm That is very interesting reading and sheds light on the whole affair. I was interested to note that the conviction was based on law existing at the time of the offence and not, as I believed, any new legislation regarding money laundering. Although reference is made to the fact that the jury believed that he had knowledge of the criminal nature of the funds, it doesn't mention how they proved that he had such knowledge? Fair sentence I think under these circumstances although, again interesting, that in the UK he would not be in a category 2 prison but an open prison. And again that the sentence was justified as a deterrent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian rush Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Although reference is made to the fact that the jury believed that he had knowledge of the criminal nature of the funds, it doesn't mention how they proved that he had such knowledge? As this was an appeal against sentence, the appeal court judgment won't look at the jury's finding of fact re: conviction (i.e. proof beyond reasonable doubt established) - the typical grounds for appeal against conviction are that the judge has misdirected the jury in relation to the law or in summing up the evidence - not just that 'the jury decided it wrong' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 and I could not find a judgement in an appeal against conviction so I assume he accepted he had been correctly convicted. In another thread about Douglas East and in the Dirk Hoehmann thread there have been comments about how slow things are information wise. Its not a conspiracy. The decision would have been given at the time verbally, ie no reduction, sentence to stand, and then the reasons have been written up and honed. The judge of appeal is not here all the time and the Deemster Doyle has had the death of Deemster Kerruish, pressure through being a judge down, job applications and interviews, as well as his regular load of hearings and cases and administrative work. The Douglas East defendants will appear in court and be named and the offences charged will become public. Dr Dirk will appear before the Court of General Gaol, when he is listed to appear. Nothing has gone away. Sometinmes things get missed by the press. Like Mr Baines fire arms offences which were admitted and dealt with by a summary court some time ago. i did not see a report. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeky boy Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 The judge of appeal is not here all the time and the Deemster Doyle has had the death of Deemster Kerruish, pressure through being a judge down, job applications and interviews, as well as his regular load of hearings and cases and administrative work. Couldn't they just hire someone suitable until the new deemster is appointed ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theodolite Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 The judge of appeal is not here all the time and the Deemster Doyle has had the death of Deemster Kerruish, pressure through being a judge down, job applications and interviews, as well as his regular load of hearings and cases and administrative work. Plus he's done the book. It's a whoppa and the best thing ever for placing the computer monitor on to raise it a couple of inches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
becksy1892 Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 http://www.manxradio.com/newsread.aspx?id=50444 Sentencing today...place your bets Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 MR referred to Ms Holt as a 'former' advocate ? has she got the sack ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trueblood Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 MR referred to Ms Holt as a 'former' advocate ? has she got the sack ? She might still be an employee of her firm but having been found guilty of a criminal offense would surely mean her disbarrment and she is therefore no longer an advocate or ever will be again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 http://www.manxradio.com/newsread.aspx?id=50444 Sentencing today...place your bets 2 and a half years. Wife got 18 months. Advocate 12 months suspended Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.