israel to will too. is
A web reference would have been polite, especially since you have already visited the site.
Neal v The Queen was about a person convicted of buttault appealing against the sentence and recieving a harsher sentence.
Now if we strip the irrelevancies from the case it is plain that Mr Neal intended to appeal against his sentence. He would not have instructed his counsel to apply for leave to appeal if this were not the case. The Court of Criminal Appeal allowed the appeal, then dealt with it summarily by increasing the sentence.
Leave to appeal against this decision was granted on the grounds that a procedural error had occurred. It was argued the court erred in dealing with the appeal before counsel had a chance to confer with Mr Neal about the possible consequences.
Now this is pure crap. If Neal's counsel had not advised him of the consequences before applying for leave to appeal he-she was either incompetent, negligent or deliberately trying to waste court time and resources. The argument is that Neal was denied the opportunity to withdraw his appeal and escape the possibility of a greater sentence.
Clearly the time to consider the consequences of a successful application for leave to appeal is before applying, not between the time leave is granted and the actual judgement.
Ultimately the case was resolved by the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal being quashed and replaced with a refusal to allow the original appeal.
Buddhism In Practice Dr. Peter Della SantinaBuddhism In Practice Dr. Peter Della Santina ------------------------------------------------------------ Based on lectures held at Sakya Tenphel Ling, Singapore, by Dr. Peter Della Santina, Ph.D., November 1984 - January 1985 . Published for free distribution...
Effectively the High Court said "lets pretend all this didn't happen".
DM personal opinion only
