A BP EXCLUSIVE
London, UK — Court convened at 11:00 a.m., in Courtroom #3 of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, to a room full of people. Each row was packed with student spectators and the public at large. The front door bore a sign stating the court was full and that persons were not allowed to attend the proceedings unless there was a pre-booking, But BP’s silk robbed agent was in the room and here’s our report.
On the inside sat Five (5) Law Lords namely; Lord Rodger, Lord Brown, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Dyson. The Appellant (Maxo Tido) was represented by Julian Knowles, QC (http://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/Members/38/Julian%20Knowles.aspx) of Matrix Chambers who was instructed by Solicitors, Simons Muirhead and Burton and the Crown (Queen) was represented by Peter Knox, QC (http://www.3harecourt.com/Barristers/Barrister.aspx?MemberID=11) and Tom Poole (http://www.3harecourt.com/Barristers/Barrister.aspx?MemberID=22) of 3 Hare Court Chambers, of whom were instructed by Solicitors, Charles Russell LLP.
The issues raised by counsel for the appellant were:
(1) Whether the appellant’s conviction for murder is unsafe because the judge permitted a dock identification of the appellant and gave inadequate directions to the jury on identification.
(2) Whether the murder was sufficiently exceptional as to call for the death penalty; whether the sentence was flawed by the failure to the judge to obtain a psychiatric report.
During the proceedings, the fact that the prosecution depended on a witness in identifying the appellant that sat in the dock at the time of trial was considered flawed. It was stated that the appellant should have been part of a line up procedure and not isolated from other persons of whom may have looks similar or have been of the same statue and built for a more accurate identification of the suspect.
Secondly, the Lords all questioned the rationale of the prosecution not requesting a psychiatric or psychological report after the appellant admitted to using alcohol and marijuana, but not abusing the substance. In such, the Lords questioned the Crown as to whether or not the appellant (Maxo Tido) was at the present time or at the time of being apprehended receiving reformation, however, the Crown stated that Mr. Tido was not being reformed but his thoughts were that the prosecutors in the case felt that a person guilty of such a heinous crime should not, but should be punished for his actions as he showed no remorse. Counsel for the appellant then stated that the reason why the convicted (Tido) did not show any remorse is because to date he maintains his innocence and a person innocent can never truly display signs of guilt.
The Law Lords then went on to suggest that other procedures should have been followed in order to reasonably affix the death sentence to a person of whom there was no psychological or psychiatric report for, confirming that the individual was either in his right frame of mind at the time of the murder or suffered from an abnormality of the mind. There was also recommendation by the Lords that on such evidence that perhaps a determinate sentence or life sentence could have been ordered. In addition, it was also stated that the death penalty are only ordered in cases where the it is evident that the suspect was one that could not be reformed and would possibly re-commit a similar crime if allowed back into the society. On these grounds, the Law Lords stated that it was difficult to assess the probability, as there was no conclusive evidence as to the state of mind of the suspect either at the time of the alleged offense or at the present time.
Both the Crown and Counsel for the appellant concluded their submissions and the court was adjourned at 2:55 p.m. of which it was stated that the judgment will be read on a later date.