Post content has been hidden

To unblock this content, please click here

Beginner January 2007

Peter Tobin - Dinah Macnicol murder trial

Roobarb, 8 July, 2009 at 13:31 Posted on Off Topic Posts 0 5

Saved

Report
Hide content

I meant to ask this before but I forgot and the trial has now had to be abandoned

Anyway, I was quite curious about why when talking about the trial on the news they were allowed to refer to Peter Tobin as a 2 time convicted murderer? I thought previous convictions weren't allowed to be disclosed?

Report
Hide content

5 replies

Latest activity by Wordsworth, 8 July, 2009 at 17:10

Beginner November 2003
policefox lyn · 8 July, 2009 at 13:41
Report

Hide content
Just a guess, but could it be that they're using similar fact evidence?
- Reply
Beginner January 2007
Roobarb · 8 July, 2009 at 13:43
Report

Hide content
View quoted message

That would possibly explain why they're able to refer to the Vicky Hamilton one, as her body was found alongside the other girl's

But not the Polish girl he murdered in the church?
- Reply
Beginner September 2007
Crookshanks · 8 July, 2009 at 13:46
Report

Hide content
This is from the Guardian's article:

Jurors were told Tobin had been convicted of murdering Hamilton, and was serving a life sentence for the crime.

They were also told Tobin had a conviction for indecently assaulting two 14-year-old girls in 1994.

Like you, I did think previous convictions could not be disclosed during the trial, so would be interested to know. Perhaps those were disclosed because jurors might remember or already knew about those convictions, especially Vicky Hamilton's murder?
- Reply
Beginner September 2007
Crookshanks · 8 July, 2009 at 13:55
Report

Hide content
You made me curious so I had a quick search and found this page: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2007/06/notes/contents

"Subsection (2) provides details of when previous convictions may be disclosed on complaints (where the offences relate to the same occasion, are of a similar character or form part of a course of conduct). This is a fundamental change in procedure."
- Reply
Beginner January 2007
Roobarb · 8 July, 2009 at 16:56
Report

Hide content
View quoted message

That applies to a different kind of procedure though (specifically Scottish summary criminal procedure which is done without a jury so there's no risk of a jury being influenced) , but maybe there is a rule like that which operates.

Either that or it is maybe a PFL says because those offences were just so similar to the Vicky Hamilton and Angelika Kluk ones that they were mentioned - particularly the VH one, it is only because she was murdered up here he was tried here, he could have driven her over the border and murdered her there and he'd be tried for the 2 together presumably.
- Reply

Beginner September 2005
Wordsworth · 8 July, 2009 at 17:10
Report

Hide content
I haven't seen any mentions of the Kluk case in conjunction with this trial (and IIRC it wasn't mentioned in the press reports on the Vicky Hamilton case until after the verdict). I would have thought it would be difficult to keep mentions of VH out of this trial, given they were buried next to each other.
- Reply