| Revision as of 18:14, 2 July 2007 editErebus555 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,869 edits {{WPWM}}← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:31, 19 August 2007 edit undoAatomic1 (talk | contribs)9,565 edits →Unsafe - QuashedNext edit → | ||
| (18 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| I hope this information is helpful. Stef x | I hope this information is helpful. Stef x | ||
| ==Nitrite== | |||
| ⚫ | I have seen it reported that some of the Birmingham Six may have tested positive for explosives due to handling nitrated sausages. Anyone know if this can be verified? ] 02:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ⚫ | :They were tested with a ] which isn't very specific to explosives - from my memory of the case, they were playing cards and the coating on the cards could give a false positive. ] 16:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ⚫ | |||
| :] is used for the ] ] because it prevents bacterial growth. ] used the ] which detects Nitrite ions ] ] 07:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | They were tested with a ] which isn't very specific to explosives - from my memory of the case, they were playing cards and the coating on the cards could give a false positive. ] 16:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :Also E249 ] ] 09:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Vandalism == | == Vandalism == | ||
| Line 34: | Line 37: | ||
| :It was part of the appeal case and wasn't disputed. ] 08:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | :It was part of the appeal case and wasn't disputed. ] 08:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ==]== | |||
| The link referenced to the article, stating the contents of the book, is toast. I have found the article : | |||
| There is no mention of the book or its contents at all. ] 18:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Unsafe convictions == | |||
| I distinctly remember the convictions of the Birmingham 6 being declared UNSAFE by the Judiciary at that time. | |||
| This is different from QUASHED . Unsafe often refers to the tampering of evidence or other irregularities of procedure ( beating suspects forced confessions etc) nowadays covered by PACE. ( Americans have MIRANDA ) | |||
| Put it another way - If I were convicted of a crime and later had the conviction declared UNSAFE I would not be a happy bunny !! | |||
| To have my conviction QUASHED or declared WRONG would mean that I should have been found NOT GUILTY in the first place. | |||
| In this category I would feel happiest. | |||
| Unsafe conviction means that they ( The Judiciary ) believe I probably did the crime I was accused of but because the police obtained the evidence to convict me by punching me all over and getting me to sign a confession to stop the "torture" the whole process of law was thereby | |||
| brought into disrepute. | |||
| We can't have that so convictions that are achieved in that manner are usually declared unsafe particularly when the original evidence is so badly tainted it would be impossible to re-try the suspect(s). | |||
| In America it is a bit like "getting off on a technicality" and in the case of the Birmingham six there were just too many technicalities. | |||
| Serious readers are advised to research UNSAFE Convictions via any decent LAW BOOK or ask a friendly Barrister ( I hope you never need one !!) <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:15:48:31, August 19, 2007 (UTC)| 15:48:31, August 19, 2007 (UTC)}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ===...er the article does not say 'quashed' anywhere=== | |||
| If it did I might use the Verbatim quote from the judges in '''R v Ward''' | |||
| *...''the convictions were all unsafe and unsatisfactory. We therefore allow the appeal and quash the convictions of Miss Ward on all counts'' | |||
| ] 16:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| === Unsafe - Quashed === | |||
| Perhaps we can have this verbatim quote in the main article and any others that confirm the due process. | |||
| As it is the article is in danger of showing too much bias. | |||
| Someone else has made a comment on the discussion page of Guildford 4 | |||
| That needs an answer too. !! | |||
| ] 16:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:31, 19 August 2007
 | West Midlands Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Template feature
Featured on Template:March 14 selected anniversaries (may be in HTML comment)
Reason appeal failed?
Please can someone say why the first appeal failed; and give detilas of the second? Thank you. Andy Mabbett 13:29, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
Isn't it somewhat... strange.... that only a few lines deal with the deaths of 21 people in the bombings, and a whole article deals with a miscarriage of justice?
Exile 21:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Not really. The article is about the Birmingham Six, not about the pub bombings. There is already an article about the pub bombings, which is the appropriate place for information about people who died in them. I have added links to that article from this one since there were none. If you know anything about the pub bombings, you are welcome to contribute to that article :) Alex 13:08, 29 August, 2005 (UTC)
The case when it first went to court resulted in the convictions, it went to appeal on the grounds of Bridge J's attitude towards the defendants and the way in which this was clearly displayed to the jury - i.e. not allowing the jury to reach their own decision on all the evidence. The 1977 appeal failed and the convictions were upheld. In criminal law the amount of times a case can be appealed is limited, i.e. there is no right to a second appeal. The only way a case can go back to the court of appeal again is if it is refered by the Home Secretary under the criminal appeal act 1978 s17(1)(a). However it must be noted that the Court of Appeal does not sit in cases such as this in its appelate role, it is limited to powrs of review as to the safety and satisfactory nature nature of the convictions. In 1987 such a reference was made, the reasons for which were: 1. fresh scientific evidence commissioned by the home office. 2. Allegations by former police officer Thomas Clarke, alleging that he witnessed intimidation of the appelants at Queens Road Police Station. However, the 1987 appeals were dismissed. The case was again refered back to the Appeal Court in 1990 as a result of further fresh evidence which had become availible since the 1987 hearing. This appeal was allowed and the case went back to hearing. I hope this information is helpful. Stef x
Nitrite
I have seen it reported that some of the Birmingham Six may have tested positive for explosives due to handling nitrated sausages. Anyone know if this can be verified? 68.147.242.17 02:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- They were tested with a Greiss test which isn't very specific to explosives - from my memory of the case, they were playing cards and the coating on the cards could give a false positive. Autarch 16:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sodium nitrite is used for the curing meat because it prevents bacterial growth. Frank Skuse used the Griess test which detects Nitrite ions NO2 Aatomic1 07:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Also E249 Potassium nitrite Aatomic1 09:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism
Looks like someone sprinkled the word "penis" throughout this article. Aparantly the word "penis" is hilarious to this immature person. Anyways, I am new to[REDACTED] so I'm not sure how to revert back to the old version. Can someone help? Thanks! Urban48 16:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Beatings in police custody
Shouldn't that be 'were allegedly beaten'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.174.195 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- It was part of the appeal case and wasn't disputed. Nick Cooper 08:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Louis Blom-Cooper
The link referenced to the article, stating the contents of the book, is toast. I have found the article : There is no mention of the book or its contents at all. Aatomic1 18:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Unsafe convictions
I distinctly remember the convictions of the Birmingham 6 being declared UNSAFE by the Judiciary at that time. This is different from QUASHED . Unsafe often refers to the tampering of evidence or other irregularities of procedure ( beating suspects forced confessions etc) nowadays covered by PACE. ( Americans have MIRANDA )
Put it another way - If I were convicted of a crime and later had the conviction declared UNSAFE I would not be a happy bunny !!
To have my conviction QUASHED or declared WRONG would mean that I should have been found NOT GUILTY in the first place. In this category I would feel happiest.
Unsafe conviction means that they ( The Judiciary ) believe I probably did the crime I was accused of but because the police obtained the evidence to convict me by punching me all over and getting me to sign a confession to stop the "torture" the whole process of law was thereby brought into disrepute.
We can't have that so convictions that are achieved in that manner are usually declared unsafe particularly when the original evidence is so badly tainted it would be impossible to re-try the suspect(s).
In America it is a bit like "getting off on a technicality" and in the case of the Birmingham six there were just too many technicalities.
Serious readers are advised to research UNSAFE Convictions via any decent LAW BOOK or ask a friendly Barrister ( I hope you never need one !!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Domnal5 (talk • contribs) 15:48:31, August 19, 2007 (UTC).
...er the article does not say 'quashed' anywhere
If it did I might use the Verbatim quote from the judges in R v Ward
- ...the convictions were all unsafe and unsatisfactory. We therefore allow the appeal and quash the convictions of Miss Ward on all counts
Aatomic1 16:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Unsafe - Quashed
Perhaps we can have this verbatim quote in the main article and any others that confirm the due process.
As it is the article is in danger of showing too much bias.
Someone else has made a comment on the discussion page of Guildford 4
That needs an answer too. !!
Domnal5 16:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Categories: