Originally Posted by
cazatou
It is not the case that JP (myself or anyone else) has to produce new evidence to "PROVE" that the finding of the BOI was correct. If, in UK, a criminal case goes to the Court Of Appeal; the Prosecution does not have to produce new evidence to maintain the Guilty verdict. It is up to the Appellant (and that persons Advocates) to produce new evidence that justifies overturning the original verdict in the eyes of the court. The same applies in Civil cases.
Two obvious observations here.
1) If there has been a miscarriage of justice, and/or there was relevant evidence which was either ignored or withheld, that surely cannot be the case.
2) This is not a criminal, civil or military court. At the risk of stating the obvious, this is a discussion forum.
With the latter point in mind, none of us are not bound by these conventions. In particular, we are discussing the merits of the original verdict, and the means by which it was achieved. We can, and should, consider all the evidence available, and indeed informed speculation
With the former point in mind, I think a number of us believe this is the case.
Kind regards,
TN