His appeal was not successful and it is not what this post is about. He doesn't look as if he had much personal hope in the first place. Both his wife and his mistress succeeded on their appeals, however.
This case involved an international conspiracy to supply crack cocaine. There have been many arrests in various jurisdictions and the Court Of Appeal recently heard 3 appeals and numerous other applications for leave to appeal by various UK based Defendants.
Those interested in the extent of the conspiracy and the underying facts can easily find that information on the internet or try the article in The Times: "Bling Bling Gang Jailed for up to 27 Years".
I am presently more interested by the Court of Appeal's choice not to investigate the existence or otherwise of an exculpatory letter allegedly written by the gang leader in the UK to the judge asserting the innocence of one co-defendant whose conviction was quashed on appeal.
The letter is dealt with in paragraph 47:
"We should add that there was also before the court an application by Anderson for an order for disclosure of a letter written by Dundas-Jones to the trial judge. Anderson's counsel understood from what had been said by HHJ King before he heard mitigation that the letter exculpated Anderson. As we have allowed her appeal without recourse to or reliance on the letter, the disclosure application is moot for the purposes of these appeal proceedings."
Anderson had already succeeded on her appeal because a prison custody officer gave evidence at the appeal of having overheard the following exchange between her and Dundas-Jones:
"Ian Dundas-Jones: 'Are you not talking to me?'
Nekeisha Anderson: 'I have been in custody 13 months because of you, if you had told me you were going to collect drugs I would not have gone. If you were a man you would tell the truth. All you are interested in is saving your own ass.'
[D-J] 'I should have told you, I am sorry.'
[A] 'You are only sorry you got caught, don't talk to me.'"
If she did not know about the drugs it followed that she was innocent. One only pauses to note that the very last thing he should have done was to have told her anything! That would have wrecked the appeal completely.
So, the letter does not matter? Not quite. She had to appeal and spent time in custody pending the hearing.
Before allowing Anderson's appeal the court had heard and determined Dundas-Jones's wife's appeal. This had been allowed on the quite different ground that her defence had been unfairly withdrawn from the jury by the judge or undermined by him in comments he made during her counsel's closing submissions.
That, it is suggested, may indicate a prosecution bias that coloured the judge's consideration of the exculpatory letter. True enough, Anderson was Dundas-Jone's mistress. However, he made no similar attempt on behalf of his wife and would not a wholly open minded judge have made some enquiry? If he did, we will never know. If he had, would the custody officer whose conscience later troubled tim so much have come forward earlier? We will never know that either.
The gang was a vicious one and long sentences for those who were guilty were entirely justified but it may be salutary for judges to consider that, when they have a large number of defendants before them, they must treat each individual separately and not give in to the temptation to tar them all with the same brush.
R v Dundas-Jones & Others
This case involved an international conspiracy to supply crack cocaine. There have been many arrests in various jurisdictions and the Court Of Appeal recently heard 3 appeals and numerous other applications for leave to appeal by various UK based Defendants.
Those interested in the extent of the conspiracy and the underying facts can easily find that information on the internet or try the article in The Times: "Bling Bling Gang Jailed for up to 27 Years".
I am presently more interested by the Court of Appeal's choice not to investigate the existence or otherwise of an exculpatory letter allegedly written by the gang leader in the UK to the judge asserting the innocence of one co-defendant whose conviction was quashed on appeal.
The letter is dealt with in paragraph 47:
"We should add that there was also before the court an application by Anderson for an order for disclosure of a letter written by Dundas-Jones to the trial judge. Anderson's counsel understood from what had been said by HHJ King before he heard mitigation that the letter exculpated Anderson. As we have allowed her appeal without recourse to or reliance on the letter, the disclosure application is moot for the purposes of these appeal proceedings."
Anderson had already succeeded on her appeal because a prison custody officer gave evidence at the appeal of having overheard the following exchange between her and Dundas-Jones:
"Ian Dundas-Jones: 'Are you not talking to me?'
Nekeisha Anderson: 'I have been in custody 13 months because of you, if you had told me you were going to collect drugs I would not have gone. If you were a man you would tell the truth. All you are interested in is saving your own ass.'
[D-J] 'I should have told you, I am sorry.'
[A] 'You are only sorry you got caught, don't talk to me.'"
If she did not know about the drugs it followed that she was innocent. One only pauses to note that the very last thing he should have done was to have told her anything! That would have wrecked the appeal completely.
So, the letter does not matter? Not quite. She had to appeal and spent time in custody pending the hearing.
Before allowing Anderson's appeal the court had heard and determined Dundas-Jones's wife's appeal. This had been allowed on the quite different ground that her defence had been unfairly withdrawn from the jury by the judge or undermined by him in comments he made during her counsel's closing submissions.
That, it is suggested, may indicate a prosecution bias that coloured the judge's consideration of the exculpatory letter. True enough, Anderson was Dundas-Jone's mistress. However, he made no similar attempt on behalf of his wife and would not a wholly open minded judge have made some enquiry? If he did, we will never know. If he had, would the custody officer whose conscience later troubled tim so much have come forward earlier? We will never know that either.
The gang was a vicious one and long sentences for those who were guilty were entirely justified but it may be salutary for judges to consider that, when they have a large number of defendants before them, they must treat each individual separately and not give in to the temptation to tar them all with the same brush.
R v Dundas-Jones & Others
No comments:
Post a Comment