Falklands : Court News (25/01/06)
Submitted by Falkland Islands News Network (Juanita Brock) 26.01.2006 (Article Archived on 09.02.2006)
The Brian Williams Appeal was turned down by Chief Justice Wood.
COURT NEWS
By J. Brock (FINN)
The appeal against the conviction on three counts: Sexual activity in presence of person under 16 contra to (section 11 (1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, Sexual touching without consent contra to (section 3(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and Sexual penetration without consent contra to (section 2(1) of the Sexual Offences 2003 that occurred on 26 March 2005, of Brian John Williams was heard before the Honourable Chief Justice James Wood on Wednesday, 25 January 2006 at 1000hrs.
Mr. Paul Trebble, lawyer for the appellant, entered the appeal on the basis that (a) some of the evidence was presented late and there was no time to consider it properly. (b) The same Police Officer, Jonathan Butler, investigated an earlier case against Mr Williams and this may have put evidence at risk of contamination. (c) The inclusion of evidence from a witness during the original trial who had made allegations against Mr. Williams but whose prosecution failed had been unfair. (d) He had sought to find another witness but could not. The complainant had made similar accusations in a case that was not prosecuted due to the credibility of the evidence against the accused. (e) And, the fact that an accusation about Mr. Williams’ behaviour on St. Helena prevented him from giving evidence of his good character.
At this point the appellant lawyer received new evidence that would be relevant to the appeal. Chief Justice Wood adjourned to allow the prosecution to view the evidence. After he came back and read the evidence Chief Justice Wood took the decision not to allow the evidence because the vast majority of the statement could not be in the knowledge of the person who made the statement and that it was purely speculation. He said it was late in the day and the evidence was not new evidence, so without the slightest hesitation, he refused to admit the evidence.
The prosecution lawyer pointed out that (a) the appellant lawyer could have had the original trial adjourned if a witness could not be found in time. (b) The complainant’s evidence could not be contaminated because she was only 9 when the incident for which a witness was called had her trial. (c) the event happened too fast for the complainant to remember in detail what had happened with another court case when she was 9 years old. (c) Vital evidence was found in the taxi that lead to Mr. Williams’ conviction.
Chief Justice Wood denied the appeal and said a full judgement would be available, perhaps this week.
|
