piebaps Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 oops sorry lisen http://www.jcpc.uk/decided-cases/docs/JCPC_2012_0046_Judgment.pdf<br /> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRIVER Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Just mr Baines to go now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monasqueen Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 To go where? He's got nowhere to go to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted February 19, 2014 Author Share Posted February 19, 2014 He is out now though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoTail Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Who was the Deemster that made the mistake? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Read the appeal court judgement on sentence. It was suggested by his psychologist that his mental condition had deteriorated, however he had been doing some pretty complex things, making statements etc and the Court appears not to have accepted the suggestion. I agree it looks as if he may die in prison, given his age and claimed state of health. I was not in court, but given sentencing principles I would suggest he got a consecutive sentence as he was seen as the prime mover, his wife got concurrent as it was seen as part of her being caught up in the whole scheme of things, under his influence, and Ms Holt, who is appealing against conviction, has portrayed herself as young, inexperienced and unsupervised and taken in by someone older, more wordly, urbane and wealthy. She was going to his house for dinner and drinks and being taken out to London restaurants by him, maybe she got too close and lost objectivity, it can be difficult, perhaps she was impressed and maybe unduly influenced, after all she did not actually receive the money, it went to her employers and the barristers employed by Mr & Mrs Baines Absolutely correct. She did not benefit in any way and was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. So what of the recipients? The expensive barristers? Apparently, as reported in the Manx press they opined that "it would probably be OK" to borrow the money from the trust. I bet they did since they were about to trouser it! Should they have to return this stolen money at least or perhaps be facing a charge of receiving stolen property? I believe that Miss Holt is justified in counting herself very hard done by, not ony in being dragged through the courts in disgrace but in the loss of her career. They could have just asked us instead. Saved all that hassle. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRIVER Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 To go where? He's got nowhere to go to. Don't you worry about that now What goes round comes round Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GD4ELI Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 oops sorry lisen http://www.jcpc.uk/decided-cases/docs/JCPC_2012_0046_Judgment.pdf Well worth reading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Basically: judge got his summing up wrong, and, maybe favoured one advocate, the prosecutor, over the other, defending and was a bit chummy with the jury. Is that a fair summary GD4ELI. It is a remarkably short judgment for the Privy Council Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GD4ELI Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Basically: judge got his summing up wrong, and, maybe favoured one advocate, the prosecutor, over the other, defending and was a bit chummy with the jury. Is that a fair summary GD4ELI. It is a remarkably short judgment for the Privy Council I agree, I've only read it once but it does seem that a serious error was made by the judge, paragraphs 27 and 28. I've often thought that the Island should lose its independence in cases like this for exactly this reason, a circuit judge (or whatever they are called these days) would be much better. ETA: Also the brevity of the report highlights how simple this mistake was. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelo Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Greedy London barristers demanding half a million up front for a case they knew they would lose, and a novice IOM barrister abandoned by her practice partners and not protecting herself, and a Deemster who got it wrong and did it wrong, and IOM prosecuters who went after a girl who made a technical error. Thank goodness we have the Privy Council. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sm-iom Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Who was the Deemster that made the mistake? Acting Deemster David Turner QC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sm-iom Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 First appeal had been rejected http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/isle-of-man-news/baines-advocate-should-have-gone-to-prison-1-3533060 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GD4ELI Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Question: Who will pay for all this - I'm guessing your favourite island? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Take it out of the trust fund. Oo er, better not. 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.