NAT MCGARRY- crook

[PapofGlencoe]

24 minutes ago, aaid said:

I don't think its a straightforwards as it looks.    She initially plead guilty just before the trial was about to go ahead.  Then she sought to change her plea to not guilty before sentencing - which I think anyone is entitled to attempt to do.  The sheriff threw this out and passed sentence.  Hence the appeal.

I'm assuming that the appeal court will make a judgement on whether or not the sheriff was right to summarily sentence her.  If they decide that he wasn't then I imagine there'll be a retrial - not that there actually was a trial but hopefully you get my gist.

 

I get all but I think it's really sad that an obviously guilty person is wasting everyone's time.

There's real injustices out there that don't even see court and this women's potentially getting a re-trial for a technicality (by breaking a habit and actually telling the truth). 

[aaid]

2 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

I get all but I think it's really sad that an obviously guilty person is wasting everyone's time.

There's real injustices out there that don't even see court and this women's potentially getting a re-trial for a technicality (by breaking a habit and actually telling the truth). 

Good job you're not on the jury then.

This might just be some cunning plan to get off on a technicality on the other hand there might be more to it than meets the eye and maybe she should've had the opportunity to go to trial.

Judges and Sheriffs make mistakes, new evidence comes to light, that's why the appeals process is in place.    

If she's ultimately found guilty, I'm sure all this won't help any sentence she gets.

She hasn't got off with anything yet.   If the appeal fails then she'll have to finish her sentence, if the appeal succeeds then presumably she'll be tried on the original offence.

[PapofGlencoe]

5 minutes ago, aaid said:

Good job you're not on the jury then.

This might just be some cunning plan to get off on a technicality on the other hand there might be more to it than meets the eye and maybe she should've had the opportunity to go to trial.

Judges and Sheriffs make mistakes, new evidence comes to light, that's why the appeals process is in place.    

If she's ultimately found guilty, I'm sure all this won't help any sentence she gets.

She hasn't got off with anything yet.   If the appeal fails then she'll have to finish her sentence, if the appeal succeeds then presumably she'll be tried on the original offence.

Och don't be so patronising! 😄 she's blatantly guilty.

That said of course everything has to take its course.  I'm merely saying in this case it's frustrating given the evidence and former guilty plea that even the spurious ones have to be given more time.

[aaid]

1 minute ago, PapofGlencoe said:

Och don't be so patronising! 😄 she's blatantly guilty.

That said of course everything has to take its course.  I'm merely saying in this case it's frustrating given the evidence and former guilty plea that even the spurious ones have to be given more time.

I suppose the problem with the "evidence" as reported in the press following her conviction is that since there was no trial what was reported was basically the prosecution case and which hadn't be subject to any scrutiny or rebuttal from the defence that you would've got from the trial - so essentially one side of the story.

I'm not passing any judgement on whether or not she's guilty or not, I'd like to see either a trial or an acceptance of the facts, i.e. she really does put her hands up.

It could all be a con-job but there was definitely something strange about the way she sacked her lawyers, represented herself and plead guilty and then engaged new representation and sought to withdraw the previous plea.   If there's nothing to that, then I imagine the appeal court will throw it out pretty quickly, if there is then she probably should be able to change her plea.

[Mark frae Crieff]

The law lords may throw the appeal out.. They may order a re trial hell they may add to the sentence!!

The funny thing is should they order a re trial and she is found guilty and should she receive a custodial sentence it will be of a greater time than the one she is currently appealing.    

       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Alan]

All those Glasgow SNP members and the Women For Indrpendence commitee have stitched her up along with MI5.  She's a political prisoner.

[Mark frae Crieff]

1 hour ago, Alan said:

All those Glasgow SNP members and the Women For Indrpendence commitee have stitched her up along with MI5.  She's a political prisoner.

Naw she's out on Interim Liberation... Do keep up.. 

[aaid]

Conviction quashed by the appeal court due to a miscarriage of justice.   I haven't seen the full judgement but I imagine that this relates to the circumstances with her trying to withdraw her guilty plea and not being allowed to by the judge.   Likely to be a retrial - although there never really was a trial in the first place.