How can this information be available before Dr Vincent Tabak even went to Trial:
Case No: CO/3685/2011
Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWHC 2074 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 29/07/2011
Before :
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES
LORD JUSTICE THOMAS
and
MR JUSTICE OWEN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
Her Majesty’s Attorney-General Claimant
- and -
(1) MGN Limited
(2) News Group Newspapers Limited
Defendants
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr Dominic Grieve QC, Her Majesty’s Attorney-General and Miss Melanie Cumberland
(instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Claimant
Mr Jonathan Caplan QC (Instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP) for the First
Defendant
Miss Adrienne Page QC and Mr Anthony Hudson (Instructed by Farrer & Co) for the Second
Defendant
Hearing date: 5th July 2011
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
Vincent Tabak was charged with the murder of Miss
. On 4th
March Mr Jefferies was informed that he was released from police bail. On 5th May
Tabak admitted that he was responsible for killing Miss Yeates when, at the Central
Criminal Court, he pleaded guilty to her manslaughter. He denied murder on the basis
of diminished responsibility.
http://onebrickcourt.com/files/cases/ag_89381.pdfThere is therefore no doubt about the identity of the man who killed Miss Yeates or
that Mr Jefferies is innocent of any involvement in it.
Several points there:
Diminished responsibilities, was never given as a reason in court.... "Or was it"??
He never pleaded Diminished responablities that I am aware of:...
How can they publish that there was NO DOUBT that Dr Vincent Tabak was guilty of a crime before he attended a trail?????
A confession is not proof of guilt....
The 1300 page document could have had his Lawyers change his plea....
But according to the pdf... HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE had already decided that Dr Vincent Tabak was guilty...
How can that be???
Isn't that information Prejudical to Dr Vincent Tabak's Trial??
The Judgement was made on the 29th July 2011
Anyone who was following the CJ saga could have read the report, Jurors and the general public alike...
How can they claim that there is NO DOUBT that Dr Vincent Tabak was responsible for Joanna Yeates death some nearly 3 months before the trial had taken place.....
They could have been anything that happened:
For instance:
(1) New evidence proved his confession was false..
(2) The sock was handed in
(3) another person had come forward to confess
(4) The lawyers had worked out that Dr Vincent Tabak, didn't have time to kill her..
(5) New witness's had come forward
(6) They found the console
check the guide lines I posted: reply 414 December 01, 2016, 12:39:56 PM »
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.405If the HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE... is telling the world that Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty before he has gone to trial...
Tabak pleaded guilty to manslaughter as he appeared on the video link from Long Lartin prison in Evesham, Worcs. But the prosecution refused to accept the plea and he will go on trial for murder in the autumn.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-neighbour-vincent-tabak-126826BYMARTIN FRICKERANDREW GREGORY
00:01, 6 MAY 2011
How could his trial have possibly have been FAIR!!!!!!
In the PDf's own words
Courts on these occasions
expressing grave doubts as to the jury’s ability to forget or put
aside what they had heard or read. I am certainly not saying
that in respect of one and the same publication there cannot be
both a contempt…and a safe conviction. Plainly there can,
most obviously perhaps in cases where the trial has had to be
moved or delayed to minimise the prejudice occasioned by
some publication.
Did the Court actually Rule that their decision Dr Vincent Tabak was GUILTY before Trial could be perceived as prejudical!!!
Is this actually allowed?????
They were aware that Dr Vincent Tabak had not had his trial
I'm not suprised his defence team failed:
How can they come to the conclusion of guilt of a defendant, before Trial... I thought innocent until PROVEN GUILTY........!!!
HOW PREJUDICAL CAN YOU GET!!!
CJ's ruling was based partly on the fact that they decided that Dr Vincent Tabak was GUILTY... ( obviously I do not agree with what the newspapers said,and they shouldn't get away with it)
And thats the High Court... God help us!!!!