In my experience all such justifications follow a practice which my first Justices’ Clerk expounded to me many years ago – be explicit in your judgments and circumspect in your reasons. The former will almost certainly be sound but the latter give grounds for appeal.

So if part of the defendant’s own evidence shows that (s)he is guilty of the offence alleged you confine yourself to pointing that out rather than gild the lily by citing prosecution evidence which supports the verdict.

Though if the defence has attacked the credibility of those witnesses it is good practice to indicate formally if you find them credible. which as I understand it was the case here.

The time limit to commence appeal by fresh hearing at the Crown Court is three weeks, the same time limit applies to appeal by case stated (i.e. on a point of law) to the High Court. The time limit to commence appeal by judicial review (to say the judge’s decision was irrational, unreasonable, or ultra vires) is 3 months.

I agree with James, it might be interesting to know who Joanne is.

Who says she was?

Er, Joanne, who admitted that “Grell said during that trial that she thought Mr Smith’s partner was 19 because she had seen him with her own eyes and that is the age he looks.” Thus confirming by implication the BBC story that Grell admitted going door to door outing Smith and telling people he was in a relationship with a 19 year old.

And of course, the magistrates seemed to think she was making an issue of his sexuality – that’s why they convicted here!

Could we have the IP address of “Joanne” published here? I’m keen to see what else “she” may have been posting.

Incidentally, wouldn’t it be normal if one was guessing how old someone looks to say they looked ‘about 20′ rather than that they looked 19?

Who says she was? I think I’ll join the hint for the elusive court notes/ transcript so I can the facts for myself.

Passing Tory: Cllr Grell says that a citizen raised the issue of his sexuality and instead of saying “who cares” when asked if he was gay she said she too thought he was. I’m not sure I’d call that “making an issue” though I would agree that in Grell’s account it is just the one doorstep.

Geoffrey Payne: AFAIK Grell admitted to ONE voter as described in above para NOT voters plural.

Angus Huck: Ridiculous example of Krays. This is tantamount to the appeal-denial that Hywel denies is a feature of the group think here. Recording that there is an appeal in is a good practice that the MSM follow. Serious bloggers would do well IMO to follow that. But it is only my opinion so do as you wish.

I could go on up the other points but I won’t. James is right in terms of the transactions. My essential point is not about the testimony – which is the only type of evidence – it is about the right to appeal.

Evan Price – who is a barrister and a welsh Tory – explains about the trouble with magistrate’s courts “summary justice” in comments here.

He says that notes other than the Judge’s note of his justification for the verdict are not normally referred to. It is more or less another trial – because of the less than rigorous approach of the MC.

Evan blogs at Evan’s Thoughts and as a barrister he tends to make a better case for his conclusions than many Tory bloggers do. Though there are often other arguments …

I can’t find anywhere where someone says this. What people are saying is it isn’t true to say that someone who has been convicted shouldn’t be regarded as having been so done until the appeal is resolved.

Even if an appeal were to succeed all that would mean is that Ms Grell was not proven to have committed the details of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. She may still have engaged in conduct which was well below that expected of a public representative. This was the point I made about the 2 Burnley councillors – even if not convicted or the convictions reversed on appeal there was still ample evidence (no transcript needed – I saw some of the trial first had) to have them thrown out of the party.

I may not be the biggest Lib Dem fan but in this case (both the case itself and “Joanne’s” follow-up) the Lib Dems seem to be in the right and the Labour position stinks to high heaven.

Trying to make excuses for the sort of behaviour Miranda Grell displayed is simply not on. Even if she had thought that Mr Smith’s +1 was 19 she should have sought to verify the fact before spreading gossip. She does not deserve to be in public office if she did not realise the impact that the rumours she was spreading were likely to have and so understand the importance of making sure her facts were correct first.

So Grell is either v.stupid or mendacious. I have long suspected that these might be seen as virtues in parts of the Labour party but I am surprised to see them being promoted so strongly.

Reggie and Ronnie Kray and Charlie Richardson also protested their innocence.

Chris Paul also wrote: “Otherwise those failing to mention this are not close to providing factual coverage and might even be running a risk legally.”

Codswallop. Until it is set aside by a superior court, the verdict stands.

Sufficient witnesses gave evidence in court to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Grell manipulated homophobic sentiment in order to get elected to Waltham Forest LBC.

There are many in the Labour Party who condone Grell’s behaviour, and others who will continue to deny it, despite the evidence.

Perhaps those Labour members who take these deplorable attitudes should consider the damage they are doing to their party’s reputation.

On Ian Roebuck’s expert evidence … this trial was surely held in front of a District Judge not a bench of magistrates?

What used to be called a stipendary magistrate. The one in question is as far as I know a trained up solicitor who has chosen to take the queen’s shilling (handsomely paid by most solicitors standards) and become a judge.

He has been involved in a number of difficult and controversial decisions. He has been appealled up to the Lords at least once before. And in that case his verdict was upheld. It was on anti-war protests/damage at a military bases as I recall.

He may have ben allocated to this case because he is relatively experienced and used to difficult cases. I don’t know how that works.

I am not a lawyer or a voluntary magistrate myself but I have a lawyer for a partner and some limited experience both treading the boards and reporting in such courts.

There is a written record of the case – which I have not seen myself at this point and was not in court in any case so cannot judge how close to the key words spoken these are – but it is true it is not technically or actually a transcript.

Notes from a clerk should however at least record what is and is not admitted if not a full verbatim record. This is certainly a document which will be relied on to an extent in the appeal proceedings. It is the best record that exists as far as we know. Though the two sides may also have hired notetakers.

Hairs are being split.

And I do think all coverage of the case should include the fact that Miranda Grell protests her innocence and is appealling the verdict.

Otherwise those failing to mention this are not close to providing factual coverage and might even be running a risk legally. All MSM coverage says this. They respect the law.

What we have instead, including in comments here, is in effect a denial of appeal rights.

Initial reactions aside I have not been commenting much on the substance despite a campaign of harrassment on my own blog – which stopped when I asked Mayer and other Lib Dems to discourage it. Thanks for that.

But I do think that Cllr Grell has a right to appeal this verdict, is right to exercise it when she protests her innocence, is fortunate to have an employer that supports the right to appeal in theory and in practice, and who also appears to be widely believed in the community she still serves.

Obviously Labour have suspended Cllr Grell pending her appeal. Also not something which tends to be recorded in blog accounts.

Can anyone please tell me what the Lib Dems or Tories would do in such circumstances? If in your party’s eyes and theirs an elected representative was wrongly convicted?

I suppose that had this been a Lib Dem or Tory councillor Labour bloggers, some Labour bloggers, might well have gone on the attack. But also that other parties would have considered supporting their member to appeal.

And I’d like to think that after days or weeks we would be agreeing with our Lib Dem peers that it is absolutely right that there is a right to (or leave to) appeal in our courts and that appearing to deny this or preempt this is not the action of reasonable, mature people.

If Cllr John Leech MP had been put on trial for his utterly untrue claims that Christie Hospital was in danger of closure, which had at least some leverage on a close election result, I’d have expected there to be a good chance he would appeal if he were found guilty. Though it must be said that in that case there is a detailed trail of pieces of print, statements from knowledgeable authorities and so on which are completely absent in this case of he said she said.

I support the right to appeal in our courts both in theory and in practice and I hope that Lib Dems also do so in both theory and practice.

This is a new application of law and all people who are active in electoral politics should I think welcome the clarification of the law and indeed the production of real transcripts rather than clerk’s notes, however good these may be.

The burden of proof in this case was and is: “Beyond all reasonable doubt”. It was not “on the balance of probabilities”. The District Judge was sure of himself. But was he right to be?