Talk:Birmingham Six
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Template feature
Featured on Template:March 14 selected anniversaries (may be in HTML comment)
[edit] Reason appeal failed?
Please can someone say why the first appeal failed; and give detilas of the second? Thank you. Andy Mabbett 13:29, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
Isn't it somewhat... strange.... that only a few lines deal with the deaths of 21 people in the bombings, and a whole article deals with a miscarriage of justice?
Exile 21:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Not really. The article is about the Birmingham Six, not about the pub bombings. There is already an article about the pub bombings, which is the appropriate place for information about people who died in them. I have added links to that article from this one since there were none. If you know anything about the pub bombings, you are welcome to contribute to that article :) Alex 13:08, 29 August, 2005 (UTC)
The case when it first went to court resulted in the convictions, it went to appeal on the grounds of Bridge J's attitude towards the defendants and the way in which this was clearly displayed to the jury - i.e. not allowing the jury to reach their own decision on all the evidence. The 1977 appeal failed and the convictions were upheld. In criminal law the amount of times a case can be appealed is limited, i.e. there is no right to a second appeal. The only way a case can go back to the court of appeal again is if it is refered by the Home Secretary under the criminal appeal act 1978 s17(1)(a). However it must be noted that the Court of Appeal does not sit in cases such as this in its appelate role, it is limited to powrs of review as to the safety and satisfactory nature nature of the convictions. In 1987 such a reference was made, the reasons for which were: 1. fresh scientific evidence commissioned by the home office. 2. Allegations by former police officer Thomas Clarke, alleging that he witnessed intimidation of the appelants at Queens Road Police Station. However, the 1987 appeals were dismissed. The case was again refered back to the Appeal Court in 1990 as a result of further fresh evidence which had become availible since the 1987 hearing. This appeal was allowed and the case went back to hearing. I hope this information is helpful. Stef x
- I have seen it reported that some of the Birmingham Six may have tested positive for explosives due to handling nitrated sausages. Anyone know if this can be verified? 68.147.242.17 02:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
They were tested with a Greiss test which isn't very specific to explosives - from my memory of the case, they were playing cards and the coating on the cards could give a false positive. Autarch 16:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism
Looks like someone sprinkled the word "penis" throughout this article. Aparantly the word "penis" is hilarious to this immature person. Anyways, I am new to wikipedia so I'm not sure how to revert back to the old version. Can someone help? Thanks! Urban48 16:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Beatings in police custody
Shouldn't that be 'were allegedly beaten'? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.225.174.195 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 20 February 2007.
- It was part of the appeal case and wasn't disputed. Nick Cooper 08:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
