I don't want to bring the mood down but...

[mosto]

is there any avenue for the prosecution to appeal the decision today, or is it all said and done? I'm not trying to be smart or negative, I honestly don't know. I'm just hoping that it is all completely finished so Brett, Jaimie and their families can put this behind them once and for all.

 

[Dan]

There is always a technicality somewhere. However in this case I can not see there being any appeal.

It seems to me that the case was pretty weak to begin with and I can not see them wanting to waste tax payers money and more time on this.

I really can not see this going any further.

 

[The Wheel]

This has already been answered in another thread, the answer is No unless new evidence etc comes to light.  Wont happen the case was piss weak in the first place - with a bit if decent detective work he wouldn't have been charged let alone gone to court

 

[Stevo]

Don't worry about appeal! I want to know if Brett can sue the holy **** out of the people who wrongly accused him?

 

[Dan]

Don't worry about appeal! I want to know if Brett can sue the holy f**k out of the people who wrongly accused him?

ahh the finer points of our law.

Just because he was found innocent, under our legal system, does not mean that the accusations are false.

Now my opinion and feeling is that the accusations were not true at all, however evidence to this would be needed for action to be taken

 

[Jatz Crackers]

The summations are usually the place to find a point of law that allows an appeal.

The best term that i can think of to describe the chances of an appeal is:

"more remote than Gallops credibility on this issue"

 

[Rex]

Only a fool would appeal when a jury spends less than an hour deliberating.

And we're already the fools - we, the taxpayers - for footing the bill for this going to court on such a blatantly weak case.

As for an appeal based on new evidence? Is this the case?  Sounds like double jeopardy.  I'd have thought an appeal could only be based on a point of law, not on new facts.

 

[Stevo]

[quote author=Fonz link=topic=185551.msg299060#msg299060 date=1285731339]
Don't worry about appeal! I want to know if Brett can sue the holy f**k out of the people who wrongly accused him?

ahh the finer points of our law.

Just because he was found innocent, under our legal system, does not mean that the accusations are false.

Now my opinion and feeling is that the accusations were not true at all, however evidence to this would be needed for action to be taken
[/quote]
That's what i figured! It just seems super unfair that you can spend $xxx,xxx.xx on defence, then found not guillty in what seems to be a complete farce of a trial and not be compensated for it!

 

[Jatz Crackers]

As for an appeal based on new evidence? Is this the case?  Sounds like double jeopardy.  I'd have thought an appeal could only be based on a point of law, not on new facts.

Yep.

 

[mosto]

Thank you all, just wasn't sure what options the prosecution had, but it would appear sweet FA.

 

[abnc]

[quote author=Rex link=topic=185551.msg299068#msg299068 date=1285731811]
As for an appeal based on new evidence? Is this the case?  Sounds like double jeopardy.  I'd have thought an appeal could only be based on a point of law, not on new facts.

Yep.
[/quote]
I'm no lawyer, but from what i understand double jeopardy only comes into play if you are found guilty. The crown then can't put you to trial a second time for the same event.

In this case Brett was found innocent, so if new evidence (like a new unknown witness or suddenly found DNA evidence) were brought to the surface, then the crown can reopen the case and appeal for another trial.

Like Dan said, just because your found not guilty doesn't mean the accusations are false. It also doesn't mean that you didn't do it. It's by the weight of evidence against the accused whether they are found guilty or not guilty.

In this case though, Brett won't have a problem in this regard.

 

[Koudini]

First post on Silvertails but long time MWSE supporter, member and sponsor this season.

First of all, DSM5 has been outstanding in his coverage of the trial. I know the last two weeks have been about logging in at 1.30pm and 5pm each day for a summation of the morning and afternoon sessions.

Second, congrats to Snake and his family for the outcome. Judging by the reports of the trial it seemed like a mere formality however with the judicial system sometimes you simply never know. Snake, take Jaime and head off on a long holiday somewhere remote, and unwind yourself from the stress of this disgraceful episode.

Finally, I really feel sorry for the jury in relation to this case. Essentially they have had to give up their working lives to listen to a trial where it looked like it was clear very early on that there could only be one verdict. While the judicial system is probably the most fair way of determining a trial, surely there must be a review of how this even got to trial in the first place. The commital hearing recommended this because there was sufficient evidence of a case. However, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER!!!!

Congrats to all involved and look forward to 2011.!

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

[quote author=Jatz Crackers link=topic=185551.msg299072#msg299072 date=1285732110]
[quote author=Rex link=topic=185551.msg299068#msg299068 date=1285731811]
As for an appeal based on new evidence? Is this the case?  Sounds like double jeopardy.  I'd have thought an appeal could only be based on a point of law, not on new facts.

Yep.
[/quote]
I'm no lawyer, but from what i understand double jeopardy only comes into play if you are found guilty. The crown then can't put you to trial a second time for the same event.

In this case Brett was found innocent, so if new evidence (like a new unknown witness or suddenly found DNA evidence) were brought to the surface, then the crown can reopen the case and appeal for another trial.

Like Dan said, just because your found not guilty doesn't mean the accusations are false. It also doesn't mean that you didn't do it. It's by the weight of evidence against the accused whether they are found guilty or not guilty.

In this case though, Brett won't have a problem in this regard.
[/quote]
Fair bit of misinformation floating about here.
Brett can't be re-tried for the same offence, he's been acquitted, that is a very basic principle of our criminal system.

There is a provision for a fresh trial in certain circumstances but limited to offences more serious than what Brett was charged with.

This case is finished.

(Also, on all the proposals to recover costs etc, zero chance based on everything I've seen reported. He can sell his story, that's about it.)

 

[DSM5]

Agreed SeaEagleRock8, this case is ended.  The horror is over.  Move on gentlemen and ladies.   

 

[Fro]

And we can all get back to smiting DSM

Seriously though, good work.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

Great first post Con...don't let this be your last!!!

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

Oh and I reckon DSM should only get positive smites for the rest of this week.

Then back to normal.

But I agree Fro seriously good work, in fact amazing really.

 

[Guest]

jus leave dsm  as moderator we need more out spoken moderators like mata & dsm ;D lol 

 

[ERNIE FOR NO7]

After seeing how week the eveidence was, you can't help wonder if the accusations were made against someone notin  the public spotlight would they have ever gone to trial.

I think because of the publicity, the police prosecutor was under pressure not to sweep the matter under the carpet.

 

[The Eagle]

Agreed SeaEagleRock8, this case is ended.  The horror is over.  Move on gentlemen and ladies.   

Ladies 1st asshole