Duncan Garner writes about two recently sentenced child-killers:
I support Massey law professor Chris Gallavin on this.
We should be applauding him for his bravery and guts in speaking out. He won’t be popular with some in his profession.
He says when these two appear before the Court of Appeal their convictions for manslaughter should be quashed – and they should be re-tried for murder. Like they should have been in the first place.
He’s confident they would be found guilty. Then they could be given a life sentence. Then they would be sent to jail for 20 years plus.
Does the appeals process actually work like this? I’m not a lawyer but I saw a trailer for the Ashley Judd movie Double Jeopardy once, and I don’t think this is how the legal system works.
Update: Andrew Geddis has already written about this inaccurate description of the appeals process here. A shame, what with all this talk of post-truth politicians that senior academics and broadcasters are getting something like this so wrong.