..as I was waffling about back in December, Luke Mitchell’s appeal case is based on the belief that coverage of the case, and various reports relating to him, meant it was impossible for him to get a fair trial.
I have to agree – I’ve never seen hysteria at the courts like it, and I think they’d be hard pushed to claim that they could have got an impartial jury!
It was while reading this report about the farcical trial for the Omagh bombings that I realised something worrying.
I’ve unconsciously started to believe that, if someone’s put up for trial, they’re almost certainly guilty. Because people only get sent for trial if there’s enough evidence to make the prosecutors believe they can get a conviction, right? Maybe it’s the result of watching too many police / forensics TV dramas, but I’ve definitely started to pick up a belief in ‘guilt proven by fact of trial, regardless of result’.
So, seeing the many high profile cases coming up on appeal here in Scotland or abroad (Kenny Ritchie (yay, finally free soon!), Luke Mitchell, William Beggs and Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi), I wonder how many of them who were vilified after their trial really were guilty? Or did people just start to think they were guilty as soon as we heard there would be a trial?
The Government has announced the final timetable for the implementation of the Companies Act 2006.
Good to see they’re sticking with the standardised dates for the implementation – makes things a LOT easier to remember!