No Justice for Simon Hall
. . . . While we have concluded that the fibre evidence given at trial was incomplete in its description and analysis of the available source material, and in its identification of green polyester fibres, wrong,
. . . . .we are quite satisfied that the scientific support for the assertion that the appellant was the source of the fibres found at the crime scene is compelling. We have no reason to doubt the safety of the jury's verdict and the appeal is dismissed.
Justice Pitchford, Justice Dobbs , Justice Kenneth Parker
Judges agree that evidence given to the Jury was wrong, but decided to hell with it conviction stands.
'Smoke and mirrors'
Paragraphs 15 through para 45, of the appeal judgement, pertain to the science of fibre analysis and the evidence of expert witnesses. I doubt, no I don't doubt, no judge/juror could follow the intricacies of what is said by the experts here. Yet our learned masters the judges make a decision on something they are not experts on.
Justices, Pitchford, Dobbs and Parker are in agreement, that evidence given to the jury at trial, was incomplete and wrong. Would the jury have given the verdict they did if they had known the prosecution evidence was wrong. I very much doubt it.
Justice and law are incompatible
Yesterdays decision was yet another travesty of justice. MOJUK has always accepted that the British courts are not about justice but about law. And yesterday the law prevailed, three judges not twelve jurors decided that one man will remain in prison.
John O for MOJUK
Simon John Hall - And - Regina, judgement can be found here . . .
Simon Hall's wife Stephanie said in a statement: "I am angry with the justice system. We will not rest until the whole truth of this case has been made public."
His mother Lynne said she would continue to fight to have him freed.
Solicitor Correna Platt, of Stephensons Solicitors, said Mr Hall and his family were "devastated". "His legal team are concerned by the approach taken by the (appeal) court in coming to this decision," she said. "It was agreed by all that his conviction rested entirely on expert evidence relating to fibre evidence, and there is much other evidence that pointed away from Simon's guilt. The "right and proper" outcome would have been for the appeal judges to have sent the case back, with the new evidence to a jury "as the jury are the final arbiters of disputes of this kind and not the Court of Appeal".