Hanratty Appeal 2002 Law Issues

[Guest]

Hi all
I have started this thread of the A6 forum to discuss aspects of the 2002 appeal from purely a legal perspective.

I suggest that posters contain their views to the law rather than the technicalities of DNA profiling.

For instance to get us started, did the appeal court judges usurp the role of the jury and its position as a review body by proclaiming that the DNA evidence was overwhelming proof of Hanrattys guilt?

Regards
Reg

[reg1965]

Legal help needed in fresh evidence in appeal hearings

Hi All

The full judgement can be found at

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j1166/HANRATTY.htm

Michael Mansfield for the appellant put forward that the role of the court of appeal was one of review. In this sprirt he added that that any fresh evidence sought to be admitted by the respondent should be evidence that relates to or rebuts fresh evidence sought to be admitted by the appellant. (para 101)

The judges looked for guidance and authority in a number of other cases and with regard to the criminal appeals act, in all it's guises.

This especially relates to section 23 of the Criminal Appeals Act 1968.

Did the judges overstep the mark (even considering their discretionary powers) by accepting the DNA evidence when it [the DNA evidence] did not rebut any grounds brought by the appellant?

It should be noted that in a criminal trial the burden of proof lies with the prosecution yet in an appeal it is for the appellant to give good grounds for it to succeed. It seems to me that for the respondent to give new fresh evidence that does not relate to the appellants grounds it is akin to trying the case over again. Which I feel has happened here.

If anyone with a strong legal background can help here I would be most grateful.

Kindest regards
Reg

[burkhilly]

Haven't a great deal to say on the legal aspect of this case, although I would ask why it took so long for the case to be heard by the Appeals Court? There were numerous calls for an inquiry, after which on two occasions the case was looked at by high profile lawyers, who found that the conviction was safe.

Was something revealed to them that wasn't made public? How I'd love to have access to ALL the documentation on this case!

[Victor]

For instance to get us started, did the appeal court judges usurp the role of the jury and its position as a review body by proclaiming that the DNA evidence was overwhelming proof of Hanrattys guilt?

I think that it's a very desperate act indeed to move from attacking the evidence on it's merits to attacking the methods by which the new evidence was introduced.

In other words, the DNA evidence is overwhelming proof of Hanratty's guilt but it wasn't available to the jury in 1962 so you can't use it now.

I definitely believe that it's a much bigger travesty for the evidence to exist, but for it to be inadmissable for purely semantic or procedural reasons. I would expand this category to include all the statements made to the police concerning the Rhyl alibi that the prosecution kept from the defence.

KR,
Vic.

[reg1965]

Haven't a great deal to say on the legal aspect of this case, although I would ask why it took so long for the case to be heard by the Appeals Court? There were numerous calls for an inquiry, after which on two occasions the case was looked at by high profile lawyers, who found that the conviction was safe.

Was something revealed to them that wasn't made public? How I'd love to have access to ALL the documentation on this case!

Hi B
The appeal hearing in 2002 was the culmination of almost a decades work, primarily by Bob Woffinden. His research which included records released by Bedfordshire Police formed part of the submission to the newly formed CCRC in 1997. The CCRC took 2 years to investigate the case and referred it back to the court of appeal. That wasn't heard until 2002! The wheels of justice do seem to move slowly when miscarriages of justice are presented.

The first (actually 2 seperate) inquiry(ies) was conducted in secret by a policeman Detective Superintendent Douglas Nimmo of Manchester City Police, in 1967. Lord Russell of Liverpool advised the Rhyl witnesses not to speak to him or his agents unless they had a solicitor present.
The second was the remit of the barrister Mr Lewis Hawser QC in 1974/5. It has been published as a crown paper. (our Tony has a copy). This has been attacked by both Foot and Woffinden as being a complete whitewash.

I think that messrs Nimmo and Hawser didn't have to look at any papers that may have not been made public to come to a decision that the original verdict was safe. All they had to do was ignore the Rhyl alibi statements which the police and the Home Office had had from submissions by the Hanratty family. If anything held by the Crown incriminated Hanratty, then I think that the public would have heard before now, know what I mean.

Another appeal will happen and the DNA evidence will be discredited, believe me. The Crown will then have to face the fact that no evidence exists at all against Hanratty and deem the original verdict as unsafe.

Hope this helps
Kindest regards
Reg

[caz]

It should be noted that in a criminal trial the burden of proof lies with the prosecution yet in an appeal it is for the appellant to give good grounds for it to succeed. It seems to me that for the respondent to give new fresh evidence that does not relate to the appellants grounds it is akin to trying the case over again. Which I feel has happened here.

Hi Reg,

Isn't it the case these days (and a very good thing too) that if some guilty scumbag got off in the past for lack of sufficient evidence, they can now be made to face a retrial if new and compelling evidence emerges against them?

Those who worked tirelessly towards an appeal against Hanratty's conviction should have been prepared in case their efforts resulted in new evidence emerging that strengthened the case rather than weakened it.

In particular, if they anticipated being able to use DNA evidence to clear Hanratty and put another man in the frame, thereby providing the perfect grounds for a successful appeal, they could hardly cry over spilt milk when it went the other way and unexpectedly provided excellent grounds for its failure.

It's a bit much, calling for an appeal and calling for DNA testing and when the outcome is the polar opposite of the one hoped for, trying to claim that the latter has no legitimate place in the former.

There would presumably be no grounds for even considering another appeal in this case unless a considerable body of independent experts were to succeed in 'discrediting' the specific DNA findings that provided confirmation of the original verdict.

Even then, I'm not sure the genie could be put back in the bottle and good enough grounds be given for a future appeal to succeed - certainly not by a handful of individuals with nothing fresh to offer, who convinced themselves long ago that no evidence of any description could ever make Hanratty guilty.

Love,

Caz
X

[reg1965]

Hi Caz

Hi Reg,

Your points:-

1) I assume that you mean double jeopardy and its ammendments under the Criminal Justice Act 2003?

2) I have made much of this before, the fact is that practically all of the experts in forensic DNA worked for the FSS at that time and still do today. Would anyone risk their career, become a whistleblower and act as a defence witness? Dr Evison, and I have no personal truck with him, was way out of his depth as the defences sole 'expert' witness.

3) Messrs Mansfield and Sweeney both agreed that the DNA evidence exculpated Alphon. You therefore cannot say that the defence made any grounds in that appeal because of Alphon's guilt in any way, shape or form.

4) The defence were hardly likely to be able to call on [DNA] evidence, sought by them, that was inconclusive. The DNA evidence provided by the Crown did not rebut any specific ground brought by the defence. I have it under good authority that this is the first time that the Crown has sought to bring fresh evidence in an appeal hearing.

5) Correct, and it will happen.

6) The Rhyl alibi and all of the non-disclosed evidence must then be considered by the court of appeal and what effect it may have had on the original jury.

I know that the DNA evidence is wrong and it will be 'discredited' next time!

Reg

[Victor]

2) I have made much of this before, the fact is that practically all of the experts in forensic DNA worked for the FSS at that time and still do today. Would anyone risk their career, become a whistleblower and act as a defence witness? Dr Evison, and I have no personal truck with him, was way out of his depth as the defences sole 'expert' witness.

Hi Reg,
Are there no academic experts who might have the appropriate expertise? Most universities in this country have a Genetics Laboratory.

The defence were hardly likely to be able to call on [DNA] evidence, sought by them, that was inconclusive. The DNA evidence provided by the Crown did not rebut any specific ground brought by the defence.

Are you saying that conclusive DNA evidence of someone's innocence is perfectly fine, but that conclusive DNA evidence of someone's guilt is inadmissible?

I do agree that the DNA evidence didn't rebut a specific ground in isolation, it refuted the appeal as a whole, and therefore it rebuts each and every ground collectively.

I know that the DNA evidence is wrong and it will be 'discredited' next time!

Your faith is admirable, but as in most belief-systems you seem to be blind to the possibility of being wrong.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Ambush Alibi

Hi all,

Hanratty's Rhyl alibi is unquestionably an ambush alibi, and today would not be admissible as evidence. It definitely comes under the modern caution which I believe runs something like:-
It may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court

Therefore is it valid and\or legal for any part of the Rhyl alibi to be mentioned as part of the appeal?

KR,
Vic.

[reg1965]

Hi all,

Hanratty's Rhyl alibi is unquestionably an ambush alibi, and today would not be admissible as evidence. It definitely comes under the modern caution which I believe runs something like:-
It may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court

Therefore is it valid and\or legal for any part of the Rhyl alibi to be mentioned as part of the appeal?

KR,
Vic.

The caution is in full:-

You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.

Victor's bible [p100] answers his own question on the admissibility of the Rhyl alibi. It was not disputed by the respondents! Is he losing the faith?

[Victor]

Victor's bible [p100] answers his own question on the admissibility of the Rhyl alibi. It was not disputed by the respondents! Is he losing the faith?

What about the legality of the alibi rather than it not being disputed?

It wasn't disputed because it demonstrates that Hanratty is a liar thus giving the defence the opportunity to not raise it, and not cast dounts over the honesty of their client.

Asking questions in no way implies any doubt whatsoever that the DNA conclusively proved that Hanratty raped Storie.

I raised the question to give you the opportunity to show your openmindedness, instead you continue your bias, preaching misinformation and rejection of any evidence that proves you wrong.

Keep up the good work, and remember just because you are paranoid doesn't mean everyone isn't out to get you.

KR,
Vic.

[burkhilly]

I've been working hard reading all about the DNA testing processes, no wonder I've had headaches for the last couple of weeks!

I enjoy reading this thread so much, but just wish contributors could be a little less heavy handed about what they write. We all have our views and these should be debated - but let's respect other opinions.

I'm going to post my theories in the next couple of days and I ask not to be shot down by our more vocal members too much.

Thanks!

[reg1965]

What about the legality of the alibi rather than it not being disputed?

This thread was set up to discuss the law issues, not the DNA evidence.

It wasn't disputed because it demonstrates that Hanratty is a liar thus giving the defence the opportunity to not raise it, and not cast dounts over the honesty of their client.

Asking questions in no way implies any doubt whatsoever that the DNA conclusively proved that Hanratty raped Storie.

I raised the question to give you the opportunity to show your openmindedness, instead you continue your bias, preaching misinformation and rejection of any evidence that proves you wrong.

Keep up the good work, and remember just because you are paranoid doesn't mean everyone isn't out to get you.

KR,
Vic.

I did say at the beginning of this thread that the discussion was the law in particular and not the DNA evidence specifically.

As I said, the legality of the Rhyl alibi was not disputed by the judges. They were far too busy finding ways to allow the DNA evidence to worry about the appellants grounds.

The respondents did not rely on the passage of time aspect relating to the different standards applied.

If Hanratty was lying then why didn't the prosecution bring evidence to show that he did? Why because they did not have any.

They banked on the judges swallowing the DNA evidence and lo and behold it worked out that time.

Next time it will not!

[Victor]

Deliberately misquoting other's quotes is not permitted. I'll assume that that was a mistake and not malicious.

What about the legality of the alibi rather than it not being disputed?
This thread was set up to discuss the law issues, not the DNA evidence.

And your comment has no relation to the question asked.

I did say at the beginning of this thread that the discussion was the law in particular and not the DNA evidence specifically.

Indeed, and it was you who implied that I doubted the DNA results - I just denied it.

As I said, the legality of the Rhyl alibi was not disputed by the judges. They were far too busy finding ways to allow the DNA evidence to worry about the appellants grounds.

I thought this thread wasn't about the DNA, or do you mean that you as thread-starter can have cheap shots at the DNA whenever you feel like it, but others can't comment on them.

Just because the legality of the Rhyl alibi was not discussed, that doesn't mean that it is beyond question. You started a thread to discuss the legality of aspects of the appeals process and so I raised a legitimate concern, otherwise the whole thread is pointless as everything was resolved with the ruling.

The respondents did not rely on the passage of time aspect relating to the different standards applied.

I've no idea what you are talking about here.

If Hanratty was lying then why didn't the prosecution bring evidence to show that he did? Why because they did not have any.

They had the trial transcript where he gave the Rhyl version of events, and all prior statements where he gave the Liverpool version of events.

They banked on the judges swallowing the DNA evidence and lo and behold it worked out that time.

Next time it will not!

Here you go again, bringing in the DNA again when it suits your purpose, at least try for some consistency.

I can easily re-cast your sentence thus:-
The judges were persuaded by the compelling nature of the DNA evidence which conclusively showed Hanratty's guilt.

There's absolutely no need for further legal shinanegans, enough tax money has been wasted already.

[reg1965]

Deliberately misquoting other's quotes is not permitted. I'll assume that that was a mistake and not malicious.

Sorry about that, it was a genuine mistake. I wondered where it had gone first time, thanks for finding it!