An innocent man wins freedom

[Guest Warwick Green]

Canada is not the only country that puts innocent men in prison.

IT was the verdict that finally ended one man's 17-year struggle for justice.

Stuart Gair, 42, found guilty of a Glasgow knife murder in 1989, had his conviction quashed yesterday after it was ruled he suffered a miscarriage of justice at his trial.

Mr Gair, who had protested his innocence throughout his time in jail, expressed relief as he walked from the court of appeal in Edinburgh.

He was only 25 when, by a majority verdict, a jury convicted him of the brutal murder of 45-year-old Peter Smith during a knife attack in Glasgow city centre.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/65722.html

[Charles Anthony]

Does Stuart Gair get justice?

Does "the State" get away scot-free?

[Guest Warwick Green]

Does Stuart Gair get justice?

Does "the State" get away scot-free?

If Mr Gair has any sense he will sue the rear-end off the Republic of Scotland.

[Charles Anthony]

To play the devil's advocate, what if Mr. Gair suffered incapacitating mental illness as a result of incarceration and had no friends or family to support him?

He would never get justice and we would never have heard of him.

[Guest Warwick Green]

To play the devil's advocate, what if Mr. Gair suffered incapacitating mental illness as a result of incarceration and had no friends or family to support him?

He would never get justice and we would never have heard of him.

I suspect that happens - maybe more than we realize.

[Rue]

Well in this case it looks like the main witness lacked any credibility and fabricated his testimony and that evidence was then a key element in what led to the conviction. But is the guy innocent? Its possible. I mean from an evidentiary point of view, he probably couldn't have gotten convicted without the tainted testimony but call me skeptical but you have to wonder about his alibi. It doesn't sound like he had anyone corroborate it. So maybe he isn't so innocent but yes he was wrongfully convicted. Its a tough system. Those of us who have worked in it have seen innocent people framed and wrongfully convicted and scrum of the earth walk on technicalities. The system has a lot of warts and it sure can't be perfect. The fact is police have fabricated evidence in situations where they are convinced someone is innocent and might walk on a technicality. It's also a fact that a street weary cop may be a tad cynical and be a little too quick to think someone is guilty. It happens. Police make mistakes. There are also defence lawyers who get off absolute scrum using technicalities. That is the system. But yes, it makes one wonder if you believe in capital punishment..is there such think as a 100% perfect case?

[FTA Lawyer]

I find it remarkable in a thread about a guy spending the better part of two decades in jail for a crime that he ought not to have been convicted for that almost immediately people are talking about the evil defence lawyers getting people off on "technicalities".

Those "technicalities" are otherwise known as the rule of law and due process and are precisely the objective structure built into an otherwise fallible human system which are designed to protect all citizens from miscarriages of justice.

Without what Rue calls "technicalities" we would have a system based entirely on subjective gut reaction or intuition of police officers, prosecutors, and judges. Sure, most of them would try to do the right thing and many times their instincts would be correct...but many times not.

I have always characterized my role in the criminal justice system not in terms of "getting people off" but in ensuring safe convictions. Don't forget that only approximately 8-12 % of criminal matters are ever set for trial, and ultimately only about 6-8% ever actually run a trial. The vast majority of accused people plead guilty.

For the tiny minority who actually maintain their innocence and exercise their right to a trial, I will make no apologies if I make the Crown's job of securing a conviction as difficult as legally possible. That way, when I lose a trial and my client goes to jail, I shouldn't have to worry for the next 20 years about whether or not my client belongs behind bars.

FTA

[geoffrey]

I'm with FTA on this one. Remember, the person doesn't have to be innocent to walk... he needs to be not guilty.

It's vital protection from the state and I don't understand what's with all the conservatives lately switching about face on this issue. Our side used to fear the establishment, and support limitations on it's power. But recently, I've seen alot of conservatives wishing to extend the power of the legal system, reduce the burden of proof.

It's troubling. Technicalities aren't excuses, they are faults in the case, should be seen on par with the faulty witness or what not.

Wrongful convictions create further injustice and that's not something I support. Let's make sure we get it right, even if it takes alot more work to get it down. Rule of law is the basis of any free society.