Make and explore Freedom of Information requestsFollow this request
There are 2 people following this request
Act on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Wrong burden of proof applied.
To House of Lords by Derek Canning LLB [HONS] (Account suspended) 18 May 2009
the burden of proof and wrongful convictions
To Prime Minister’s Office by Derek Canning LLB [HONS] (Account suspended) 18 May 2009
burden of proof
To Animal Health by Derek Canning LLB [HONS] (Account suspended) 18 May 2009
The burden of proof
To Home Office by Derek Canning LLB [HONS] (Account suspended) 18 May 2009
THE WRONG BURDEN OF PROOF
To House of Commons by Derek Canning LLB [HONS] (Account suspended) 18 May 2009
THE RSPB PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE WHILE THE HOME OFFICE TURN A BLIND EYE
To Home Office by Derek Canning LLB [HONS] (Account suspended) 20 April 2009
THE RSPB USING THEIR MEMBERS IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS TO CONTROL THE WAY THE LAW IS FORMED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AND THE HOUSE OF LORDS
To House of Commons by Derek Canning LLB [HONS] (Account suspended) 20 April 2009
PLEASE SUPPLY INFORMATIOON ON THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND THE GOULD REPORT
To Animal Health by Derek Canning LLB [HONS] (Account suspended) 1 July 2009
Information request
To Northumbria Police by Derek Canning LLB [HONS] (Account suspended) 3 August 2010
Information on the fact that the burden of proof should be on the prosecution however it has been wrongly placed on the defendant for many years?
Derek Canning LLB [HONS] (Account suspended) made this Freedom of Information request to Ministry of Justice
Waiting for an internal review by Ministry of Justice of their handling of this request.
From: Derek Canning LLB [HONS] (Account suspended)
18 May 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,
Given what I have just found in Hansard could you please supply the
information on what you can do in relation to investigating the
fact that Parliament intended that the burden of proof should be on
the prosecution in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 however it
has been wrongly placed on the defendant for many years?
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/writt...
WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981: DECISIONS TO PROSECUTE
HL Deb 15 March 1983 vol 440 c718WA 718WA
§ Lord Melchett
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why, in respect of the shooting of a barnacle goose on Islay on
25th October 1982, the procurator fiscal decided that no
proceedings should be taken, and whether the procurator fiscal
decided, as with an incident that occurred on 27th January 1983 on
Islay, that no offence had been committed.
§ The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)
In deciding whether the facts as disclosed to the procurator fiscal
justified the taking of proceedings under the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981, the procurator fiscal had to decide whether
an offence had been committed, whether there was sufficient
evidence to prove the alleged offence against the accused and
whether there was any excuse for the accused's conduct. The
decision in respect of the incident of 25th October 1982 involved
the exercise of a judgment by the procurator fiscal taking all the
circumstances into consideration. It would not be appropriate to
give the detailed grounds upon which the decision was taken. I have
examined the circumstances of the case, and am satisfied that the
procurator fiscal exercised his judgment in a proper manner.
Forward to CIDER: PRODUCTION AND TAXATION
Noticed a typo? | Report other issues | © UK Parliament
Yours faithfully,
Derek Canning LLB[hons]
From: Derek Canning LLB [HONS] (Account suspended)
17 June 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,
Under the Freedom of Information Act YOU should have replied by
now, and are breaking the law therefore I want an internal review.
Yours sincerely,
Derek Canning LLB [HONS]
From: Derek Canning LLB [HONS] (Account suspended)
25 June 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,
Could you please tell me what has occurred to the internal review
and the information requested?
Yours sincerely,
Derek Canning LLB [HONS]
Derek Canning LLB [HONS] (Account suspended) left an annotation (10 July 2009)
The situation we are dealing with is people are being sent to jail when it has not been proven that the person has done anything wrong in fact there is still serious doubt as to their guilt: strict liability. It is outrageous.
Derek Canning LLB [HONS] (Account suspended) left an annotation (10 July 2009)
My letters are being ignored and my information requests on this website are being ignored and justice is being ignored from the Mystery of justice. Now where is the justice in that?
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Mr fred robinson (Account suspended) left an annotation ( 9 July 2009)
My experience with the judiciary is that it has no concept of the burden of proof, or the concept of mens rea and the corresponding actus reus.
How for example can a person be prosecuted and convicted for Council Tax Arrears he does not owe or for travelling on the railway without a ticket when he has a valid pass: without evidence being adduced to do so in either case. nor do the judiciary seem to have any concept of the legislation or common law it is bound by.
Mr fred robinson
Link to this