Appellate court

I mean, many listeners, many of our lawyer listeners, we have plenty of non-lawyer listeners and we try to remember that when we're having these conversations.

But our lawyer listeners will know that if a barrister is taking a case in the Court of Appeal, he can't or she can't be instructed by the client as to what arguments to make.

But if the client wants a particular argument to make that is tenable, I think the barrister is pretty well obliged to make that argument.

So my question to you really is, why shouldn't the government, be in the position of making arguments in court which are tenable? Why should they have to be more than tenable? And isn't there a problem that if governments are overcautious in challenging judicial reviews, we get into all sorts of problems around things like immigration, asylum, planning, law, and all the rest of it.

3.

The United States Circuit Court of Appeals has decided that a reservation in a deed precluding the sale of the property to colored persons at any future time is null and void.

4.

The decision of a New York court that the damages awarded a wrongfully accused Pullman Porter were too high because he was a Negro and without feelings has been reversed by the appellate division of the Supreme Court of New York.

I'd read about it.

So the Solicitor General, Ellie Reeves, referred Vikram's 21-year minimum sentence to the Court of Appeal under the unduly lenient sentence scheme, arguing that it was way too low and that the actual time- ... served should be increased.

And I believe, Joey, we're still waiting on the outcome of that at this point.

And while this was going on, I don't know if you know this, but Vikram was actually trying to get an appeal for himself.

He was actually speaking to the court of appeal and asking for his sentence to actually be lowered rather than increased.

Which is crazy if you ask me.

What grounds did he possibly feel that that was going to be a successful option on?

People have looked at this very, very carefully.

The Court of Appeal in South Australia has considered this and sent it back to the Parole Administrative Review Commissioner.

We're seeking advice on if there are any further options, but these are decisions that the Parole Board has made.

There will be very, very significant decisions conditions placed on people like James Lasarkas for the rest of their lives, including restrictions on their movement, things like electronic monitoring, places they can't go where victims or their families might be.

all, we have to build the courts.

And this is the court that we are building now is the Appeal Court, Supreme Court, and the Magistrate Courts.

And also two cells that has already been purchased from the United States.

The cells in fact are in Nassau now.

This is because what the Garibay Court was really upset about, and the case is in your trial material or the presentation materials that I provided to the Bar Association, so hopefully everybody watching can get a copy of the case if they want one.

But what the Court of Appeal was really grumpy about was that the defense lawyer and his expert had not included the medical records at all the the court was just expected to take everything the expert said in the declaration at face value and not be able to verify or back it up with the medical records and the the court um really took offense to that but i think went a little bit too far by bringing up the topic of the uh uh custodian of record deck because that actually wasn't the issue in front of the court but they were trying to give guidance on some level and they were also sort of trying to rectify what I think was a bad practice that was already frustrating them.

So why isn't the medical record admissible without that declaration? Because it's hearsay.

Until the offering party establishes an exception to hearsay.

And then the local courts have to make it even more challenging and fun by adding the local rules on electronic reservation of hearing dates.

So in Los Angeles, another move that caused perhaps undue distress in the defense bar was the three day filing rule.

And just a couple of months ago, the three day filing rule was to some degree, approved or at least permitted by the Court of Appeal.

That didn't involve MSJ.

Yep.

And I've got no doubt that people at the Criminal Cases Review Commission are looking to see what the Thirlwall Inquiry concluded, and if there is something that might encourage them to support, the, the CCRC should return her case to the Court of Appeal.

And they've had it for several months now.

Well, they've had it, you know, the, the, Vera Baird, who took over the chair of, uh-

Yeah

... who was the primary prosecution witness, and I, and I personally think that should have happened.

But the Court of Appeal judges didn't think that should happened.

No.

I think it's been a grave mistake that they didn't at the very least wait for the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which I suspect is going to come back with its answer in the next few months.

Uh, and I, obviously, I hope very much that the answer will be that they want the, the case to be reopened and for the Court of Appeal to hear it, but I, I don't know that, and I can't predict it.

But whichever it is, it would have made sense for this, th- this whole thing to have been paused until it happened.

What was the hurry? At the moment, what is being proposed is a series of, of, of mythical explanations for mythical murders.