Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

Labour MP charged with Perverting Course of Justice

Does that mean that she is further attempting to pervert the course of justice (allegedly)?

I think her story is now:

Her brother was driving the car and that she was only a passenger. This is why she was able to use her mobile phones whilst in the vicinity of the speed camera.

Her brother received and dealt with the NIP without her knowledge, and she had no knowledge of this Russian driver.

Her brother has now privately admitted all of this to her.
 
I think her story is now:

Her brother was driving the car and that she was only a passenger. This is why she was able to use her mobile phones whilst in the vicinity of the speed camera.

Her brother received and dealt with the NIP without her knowledge, and she had no knowledge of this Russian driver.

Her brother has now privately admitted all of this to her.
I wonder what jogged her memory and why this didn't come out during the first trial......
 
This is an ambush defence. Much beloved of people who go “no comment”. It allows them to keep their options open and change their account to suit them when faced with certain evidence.
The police are in no position to contradict this now it is at court.
She has introduced an element of doubt.
 
This is an ambush defence. Much beloved of people who go “no comment”. It allows them to keep their options open and change their account to suit them when faced with certain evidence.
The police are in no position to contradict this now it is at court.
She has introduced an element of doubt.

Can the CPS introduce her brothers mobile phone location, they must have this information.
 
Her brother has admitted to her that he was driving the car that she didn’t know who was driving, because she was at work, but anyway she was only a passenger in it and festus got out before she arrived at her aide’s house?
The jury must be having a hard time keeping straight faces...
 
Can the CPS introduce her brothers mobile phone location, they must have this information.

He is not a suspect in this case at the moment, what lawful power would the police have to seize his phone or access his phone data? I doubt the phone even exists now, knowing that it might be of evidential value.

Yes it’s possible, but unlikely unless he is charged or suspected of a further offence.
 
This is an ambush defence. Much beloved of people who go “no comment”. It allows them to keep their options open and change their account to suit them when faced with certain evidence.
The police are in no position to contradict this now it is at court.
She has introduced an element of doubt.
Even though her story has changed? She originally claimed to have been in the HoC at the time, until it was proved that she wasn't.
 
He is not a suspect in this case at the moment, what lawful power would the police have to seize his phone or access his phone data? I doubt the phone even exists now, knowing that it might be of evidential value.

Yes it’s possible, but unlikely unless he is charged or suspected of a further offence.
If they have her phone data, it would be interesting to see if she phoned her brother whilst she was in the car.
 
Can the CPS introduce her brothers mobile phone location, they must have this information.

Well, depends on what data was applied for during the investigation.

Comms Data could have been done to determine Cell Site analysis - but this will give the masts which the phone is hitting.

Depending on the service provider and the regulatory enviroment, will be depending on how low such data is kept. Sadly, it is not "enemy of the state" sort of pin-point 'they are here' type stuff on volume crime.

You would have had to go through a subscriber check to associate the phone (device) to a person and then the offence under investigation, then apply for cell-site analysis in order for this to be introduced as evidence at court. This would have been done via a Communications Data Single Point of Contact (SPOC) to the telecomms company in question. The SPOC will then complete the evidential statement, which will be part of the investigation. If this is included in the evidence bundle for the Crown to rely on at court.

(It may have changed, but not much I would have thought. I used to do a lot of stuff with Comms Data in investigations).
 
If they have her phone data, it would be interesting to see if she phoned her brother whilst she was in the car.

Bare in mind that is a different set of applications.

When attribution of the phones involved is done, you can then request billing to see what they have called and what comms have been done.

These are done on normal level of authority - when you want the product of comms data (say SMS message), that then is done on production order requiring Judge's authority.
 
Even though her story has changed? She originally claimed to have been in the HoC at the time, until it was proved that she wasn't.

Unfortunately jurors are humans, keep confusing them and changing things and some will struggle to see through it. I would hope that strong direction would stop that though.
 
Can statements made at her previous trial be used as evidence in this trial?

I believe that not only can they be, they must be.

Conduct of the retrial
Section 84(6) provides that evidence which was given orally at the original trial must be given orally at the retrial unless (Archbold 7-270):

  • All parties agree; or
  • Section 116 of the 2003 Act applies (which provides for permitting hearsay where the witness is unavailable) This is not yet in force but is likely to implemented in April 05; or
  • The witness is unavailable to give evidence for a reason other than that he or she is dead, unfit, unavailable because they are outside the UK, untraceable, or in fear (i.e. otherwise than as mentioned in section 116(2)) and it is in the interests of justice for it to be admissible section 114(1)(d) applies).
Use of depositions: If a deposition was read as evidence at the original trial where the accused was sent for trial under section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 it may not be read as evidence at the retrial in reliance on paragraph 5 of Schedule 3 to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 section 84(7).

The retrial will hear all the evidence, and the "new and compelling" evidence will not be introduced as such, (although it is clearly likely to stand out as new and compelling evidence in the context of the trial).

A witness may be cross-examined on evidence given by that witness at the original trial, for example if it amounts to a previous inconsistent statement. (Note that the new rules on inconsistent statements mean that the earlier statement will go to the truth of the matter, and not just to the credibility of the witness).
 
Top