Vincent Tabak and the Murder of Joanna Yeates

[jixy]

wow do you really believe all you are writing? surely not?

[PaultheRed]

Under s. 4 of the Bail Act 1976, on each occasion that a person is brought before a court accused of an offence, or remanded after conviction for enquiries or a report, he must be granted bail without condition, if none of the exceptions to bail apply.

Prosecutors must keep the issue of bail under review throughout the life of the case.

Conditions of bail may only be imposed where necessary to ensure that the exceptions to bail are addressed. Only where conditions are not sufficient to address the exceptions to bail should a remand in custody be sought.

Under s. 5 of the Bail Act 1976, the court or officer refusing bail or imposing conditions must give reasons for their decision.

Exclusions to the right to bail
The general right to bail does not apply in the following circumstances:

Murder

The power of magistrates to consider bail in murder cases, whether at first hearing or after a breach of an existing bail condition, is now removed by s. 115(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. This does not apply to attempted murder or conspiracy to murder.

Where a person is charged with an offence of murder or attempted murder, and has previously been convicted in the UK or court of an EU Member State of an offence of murder, attempted murder, rape or a serious sexual offence (as listed in s. 25(2) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994), he shall only be granted bail where there are exceptional reasons, which justify it.

Section 114 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 amends Schedule 1 to the Bail Act 1976. Section 114(2) provides that bail may not be granted to someone charged with murder unless the court is satisfied that there is no significant risk that, if released on bail, that person would commit an offence that would be likely to cause physical or mental injury to another person. In coming to that decision, the court must have regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, the suspect's character and antecedents and his record in relation to previous grants of bail.

Manslaughter and Serious Sexual Offences

Where a person is charged with an offence of manslaughter, rape or a serious sexual offence, and has previously been convicted in the UK or court of an EU Member State of an offence of murder, attempted murder, rape or a serious sexual offence (as listed in s. 25(2) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994), he shall only be granted bail where there are exceptional reasons, which justify it.

Note: Where a person charged with one of the offences referred to above has a previous conviction for manslaughter or culpable homicide in the UK or EU court, he shall only have his right to bail restricted where he received a sentence of imprisonment or detention upon conviction.

Class A Drug Users - Designated areas only

In certain parts of the country, Paragraphs 6A to 6C of Part I of Schedule I of the Bail Act 1976 apply which set out the exception to bail for adult drug users where their offending is drug-related, and where they have been required to undergo drug testing but have failed to comply with that requirement.

Exceptions to the right to bail
The grounds for refusing bail are set out in Schedule 1 to the Bail Act 1976.

A person may be denied bail if there are substantial grounds for believing that any of the exceptions in Schedule 1 of the Bail Act 1976 are made out. Different exceptions will apply depending on the category of offence and the flow charts at Annexes One - Six set out the approach to be taken by the court in deciding whether to withhold bail to a person charged with a particular category of offence.

Annex One: Adult Defendant: Indictable Only or Either Way Imprisonable Offence

Annex Two: Adult Defendant: Summary Imprisonable Offence

Annex Three: Adult Defendant: Non-Imprisonable Offence

Annex Four: Youth Defendant: Indictable Only or Either Way Imprisonable Offence

Annex Five: Youth Defendant: Summary Imprisonable Offence

Annex Six: Youth Defendant: Non-Imprisonable Offence

Note:

In cases involving criminal damage where the court is clear that the value involved is less than £5000, these offences are treated for the purposes of bail as if they were summary only: see Section 22 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.
Certain exceptions to bail are subject to the "no real prospect" test where a remand should not be sought for an un-convicted defendant who has no real prospect of receiving a custodial sentence. In less serious cases prosecutors should give careful consideration to the surrounding circumstances of the offence, the defendant's antecedents and any relevant sentencing guidelines in deciding whether there is a "real prospect" of a custodial sentence. Where this is not clear cut, it may be more appropriate to leave it to the court to decide and to make objections to bail in the usual way.
It is vital that prosecutors note that this is not a consideration in cases involving domestic violence or any other risk of physical or mental injury to persons associated with the defendant.
Post-conviction applications.

Pursuant to section 4(2) of the Bail Act 1976, there is no general right to bail for convicted persons.

However where a person has been convicted and is then brought before either the magistrates' or Crown Court to be dealt with for breach of the requirements of a community order or breach of certain youth community orders (s. 4(3)); or a court adjourns a case for enquiries or a report (such as a pre-sentence report) to be made in order to assist the court in dealing with the offence (s. 4(4)), the right to bail remains. Accordingly, in these circumstances, prosecutors should make appropriate representations (including any objections) as to the grant of bail.

By inference the presumption to bail does not apply to those defendants who appear before a court post-conviction where proceedings are adjourned for any other reason, for example committal for sentence.

In this situation, prosecutors are reminded of their duty to assist the court in providing information that may be relevant to their decision.

[[...]]

wow do you really believe all you are writing? surely not?

I am a just an oldish woman no experience with court or procedings.. I have said before that  I have had doubts on this conviction and arrest from the begining, I am trying to understand what the process is to get from Arrest to Conviction....

And I'm not completely sure if due process was followed (IMO) because I don't do law....

The constant movement of Dr Vincent Tabak soon after his arrest is a cause for concern..

I believe ordinarily a prisoner request to be transferred and this can take 7 days..

Well all this happened in less than 7 days and I don't believe Dr Vincent Tabak made the request...

Do prisonerrs ordinarily get moved so soon after arriving as a remand prisoner???

Even when they are under threat from prisoners etc???

Surley these processes take time????

Example of a different Prisoner who was held on remand:

The man was remanded in to the custody of HMP Altcourse in March.
Despite a history of harming himself and substance misuse, he was assessed
as presenting no risk to himself at the point of reception. He was prescribed
medication to help with his substance withdrawal and was taken to a wing
used to manage prisoners going through detoxification. On 11 March, he
requested to be moved to the vulnerable prisoner unit as he felt threatened by
other prisoners. As there was no room in the unit at that time, he was
relocated to the care and separation unit (CSU, also called the segregation
unit by staff).
2. Suicide prevention measures were begun on 16 March when a chaplain
reported that the man told him he was thinking about harming himself.
However, he was primarily concerned about the type of sentence he might
receive and, when these fears were allayed, the measures were stopped. He
stayed in the CSU until 18 March when he was located in the vulnerable
prisoner unit (VPU).

http://www.ppo.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/004-11-Death-of-a-male-prisoner-4-4-11-Altcourse.pdf

It took time to assess this Prisoner who felt theatened by other inmates:

So..... surely there would have been measures for Dr Vincent Tabak which would take longer than 24/48 hours of him being in 2 prisons..

I don't see what assessment need to be made to class him as a vulnerable Prisoner and if the assessment where made that he was vulnerable to threats why move him so soon!!!  Doesn't make sense ..

This was indeed SPECIAL treatment that Dr Vincent Tabak recieved as ordinarily they wouldn't just move a prisoner...


How many prisoners are vulnerable???
And how many do they move..??

They can't move all of them, they haven't the space or facililities.. So why was Dr Vincent Tabak cases so SPECIAL they had to move him twice in 24/48 hours..

Had Holland intervened?? If so why where they not representing him..

There seems no real justifiable reason to move Dr Vincent Tabak over any other prisoner at this time...

[PaultheRed]

If prisoners are charged with a crime that is sexual in nature, they must also be segregated for their own protection.

The Basic Point is This...Every human being, be they prisoner, detainee, terrorist or asylum seeker has the basic human right to be treated with dignity and respect. They have the right to food, housing, protection, education and assistance from the law. They have the right not to be exploited, tortured or intimidated. As a country we have agreed to abide by the European Convention on Human Rights, as a nation we have the Human Rights Act to protect us from those who would seek to harm us or prevent us from enjoying our civil liberties.

[jixy]

really? lol ok...

For an 'oldish' lady you seem to have a long list of what should happen yet you say that you don't know about proceedings

You don't know the goings on and as members of the public we don't have a right or need to. Its a murder case not open for us all to see every twist and turn of what happened to him, what he said or didn't say.

[[...]]

Under s. 5 of the Bail Act 1976, the court or officer refusing bail or imposing conditions must give reasons for their decision.

Exclusions to the right to bail
The general right to bail does not apply in the following circumstances:Murder

The power of magistrates to consider bail in murder cases, whether at first hearing or after a breach of an existing bail condition, is now removed by s. 115(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. This does not apply to attempted murder or conspiracy to murder.

Where a person is charged with an offence of murder or attempted murder, and has previously been convicted in the UK or court of an EU Member State of an offence of murder, attempted murder, rape or a serious sexual offence (as listed in s. 25(2) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994), he shall only be granted bail where there are exceptional reasons, which justify it.

The problem is that an Application for Bail didn't even happen not whether he had a right to Bail...(IMO)

That I really do not understand!!

[jixy]

He is a murderer.... its plain and simple. Why should he get bail? why is that so hard for you to accept

[[...]]

If prisoners are charged with a crime that is sexual in nature, they must also be segregated for their own protection.

He wasn't charged with a sexually related crime...

That only came after they decided that it wasn't manslaughter and the prosecution needed to prove motive, thats when it became a Sexually Motivated case, and not before......


Joanna Yeates had not been Sexually Assaulted (FACT)

The Prosecution used Searches to establish that it had been a sexually motivated Attack.. (searches do not prove intent).....and that was after the initial charge!

The Sexual Intention was not brought up in his original charge?? that I am aware of (IMO)

So what were they protecting him from?????

He was basicallly someone who had a murder charge against him.... nothing was proven at this point...

No need for segregation as a prisoner charged with a Sexually Motivated Crime..


So why in late January when he had made 2 appearances in court was an application for bail not filed?

[jixy]

that is a quote for all kinds of situations. Not sure why we keeping having to focus on sex offences.. You Drew our attention to this case, Not quite sure what your AIM is but you seem to think it is all one big con.

Points to consider

Apart from in cases involving Murder or Rape there is a presumption in favour of Bail under s4(1) of the Bail Act 1976

Apart from.... there is NO right to be given bail as you seem to think that he was being badly done to

But apart from a murder, a poor man was  accused previously and publicly assassinated by the press etc. Feelings were running high, as proven when he went to prison, he was in possible danger.

Remanding him into custody is the NORM anyway but also to protect him!

[[...]]

really? lol ok...

For an 'oldish' lady you seem to have a long list of what should happen yet you say that you don't know about proceedings

You don't know the goings on and as members of the public we don't have a right or need to. Its a murder case not open for us all to see every twist and turn of what happened to him, what he said or didn't say.

I'm not here to Justify my reasons for having an interest in this particular case..
As I have reiterated many times, this case bothers me..


I want to understand how Dr Vincent Tabak came to change his plea to Manslaughter, because we don't know..
Prisoners falsey admit to things that they didn't do...

Yes the public should not have willy nilly access to anything they deem they may need to investigate or prove that a persons trial is fair or not...(that is for the Lawyers)..

But to bring any case to a Lawyers attention you need to find facts or New Evidence that will change the course of events..
And looking into cases costs time and money..

Who's to say that someone isn't looking into this case and the way in which it was handled.. We don't know!

Stefan Kizkos mother.. spent years trying to prove her Son was innocent of the crime he was committed for...
She didn't have the luxury of the internet to help her in her process...
Or forums with  people asking questions regarding her sons predicament...

And as we know ... that poor man was innocent, there was No question that he was innocent..

The Police of the day were under pressure to have someone ...anyone in prison for the murder of Lesley Molseed.

They knew that he couldn't possibly be the killer...He was Sterile..
Yet he went to court and Prison for this crime..
And served 18 years I think...

So as the title of the forum suggests.. People are looking into what they think is a miscarriage of Justice,..

[jixy]

I cant see anyone asking you to justify your reasons yet you quoted me.

[[...]]

wow do you really believe all you are writing? surely not?

I believe he was unfairly treated....(IMO)

I believe alot of smoke and mirrors were used... (IMO)

I believe Dr vincent Tabak did notknow if he was on his arse or elbow (IMO)

I believe The Defence should have been furnished will all relevant papers pertaining to the crime before trail (IMO)

I believe April 1st would have been  a start....(IMO)

I believe Dr Vincent Tabaks defence should have been given more than a day to counter act the 1300 page document that was presented in court on the day of trail... (IMO)

I believe if the jury understood this 1300 page document they may have come to a different conclusion(IMO)

I believe that asking the jury to add a note to a printed document saying "DEFINITION" prejudiced their view of Dr vincent Tabak..(IMO)

I believe that if the word that changes the interpretion of an action which wasn't originally there, should not be added after... (IMO)

I believe what i consider as the Confession to the Chaplain the only evidence they had he had committed a crime ...(IMO)

I beleive the original evidence brought to convict him was not used at trial ...(IMO)

I believe if DR Vincent Tabak had influencial friends and money for a Lawyer he would have been on bail..(IMO)


I believe the sexual motivation wasn't part of the original charge ..(IMO)

I believe they thought the crime had been committed on the Saturday... (IMO)

I believe that is why they arrested CJ.. (IMO)

I believe the CCTV of a car on Clifton Suspension bridge was on the Saturday and not the Friday (IMO)

I believe because it was Saturday for the CCTV.. it suddenly became grainy... (IMO)

I believe they identified the car on the CCTV and either arrested or contacted the owner....(IMO)

I believe the crying girl was a ruse... not produced in Trail... (IMO)

I believe nobody fingered DR Vincent Tabak of this crime... (IMO)

I believe there was a reason not to show the Asda Time Stamp....(IMO)

I believe that moving him several times in 24/48 hours constitues duress... (IMO)

I believe if Dr Vincent Tabak had searches such information about the difference between manslaughter and murder  charges.. he would have definetly made an appeal for bail...(IMO)

I believe if it's possible to see the 1300 page document it would show that Dr Vincent Tabak did not have enough time to commit this crime...(IMO) on Friday 17th Dec 2011

I believe as a foreign National there should have been some intervention or communication by the Dutch Authorities..(IMO)

I believe the Police were under pressure to convict someone after the CJ fiasco....(IMO)

I believe he should at least be in a dutch prison so his family can visit... (IMO)

I believe that there isn't anything wrong with questioning something you have concerns over.... (IMO)

[jixy]

And his confession?

I believe there are very good reasons for most of what you quoted but im sure you will disagree

So his confession is wrong, the fact he cried in court and said sorry is wrong also

He would not have been given bail no matter what money he had!

Maybe he was moved for his own safety - would that be wrong to you too?

There is never anything wrong with questioning things that don't make sense. What I don't understand is that even when alternative scenarios are offered you ignore and dig deeper to prove his innocence, his ill treatment  while taking none of it on board!

[mrswah]

My goodness, people have been busy on here again!!

I'm afraid it was me who originally started the thread and drew people's attention to the case.  I am unhappy about it for many of the same reasons as "Nine " is.  I am also an old-ish woman, by the way!!

I did not say that VT SHOULD have been given bail, and I understand that people accused of murder are usually not.  However, the understanding was that VT's solicitor was going to APPLY (he might not have been successful), and then he didn't.  I am wondering what (or who) changed his mind, and why he stopped representing VT shortly afterwards.

I believe some murderers are more dangerous than others:  terrorists and serial killers are more dangerous than somebody who kills his or her spouse, for example, because somebody who murders for a personal reason, eg jealousy, or because their spouse was having an affair,  is not as likely to murder again as somebody who kills randomly, or for political reasons.  That is (presumably) why some murderers are given longer tariffs than others, and why some are given whole life tariffs.

I did read that VT was moved from Bristol prison for his own safety, very shortly after being placed on remand,  but I hadn't realised he had been moved twice.  I cannot help believing that his meeting with Brotherton was deliberately engineered. 

I also did not realise that so many foreign nationals were in UK prisons----thank you to the poster (dont remember who it was) who passed on that piece of information.

[jixy]

My comments were all very important figures of speech that when read properly make total sense. Im not surprised you are similar to Nine, not at all

Firstly as for dangerous murderers. Hmmm he pointed the finger at an innocent man which in turn turned the attention on to himself

On his laptop they also found explicit videos of a blonde woman being throttled. What an unfortunate coincidence
Poor man, what are the chances

Considering how Joanna died, I would say yes he is dangerous very dangerous wouldn't you?