Justice Deferred: A Legal Tale of Redemption – Ertelenmiş Adalet: Bir Telafinin Hukuki Öyküsü

Bu yazımızda siz değerli okuyucularımıza, Birleşik Krallık’ta görülen “Malkinson v The King” davasının temyiz kararı içeriğinden hazırladığımız bir diyalog çalışmasını sunuyoruz.

Hukuk İngilizcesi bakımından, özellikle Ceza Hukuku terminolojisi ile zenginleştirdiğimiz diyalogun sonunda bir kelime listesi ile kısa bir test çalışması da sizleri bekliyor.

Keyifli Çalışmalar …

Mahkeme Kararını okumak için tıklayınız !

DİYALOG METNİ

Lawyer 1: Good afternoon. I hope you’ve had a chance to thoroughly review the judgment in the Andrew Malkinson case. It’s quite a complex one with several grounds of appeal and new scientific evidence coming into play.

Lawyer 2: Yes, I have. This case is indeed complex, and the new DNA evidence could potentially change everything. Let’s start by discussing the grounds of appeal. The first ground was already allowed during the hearing, which led to the quashing of Malkinson’s convictions.

Lawyer 1: That’s correct. The first ground related to the presence of DNA evidence on the victim’s clothing that did not match Malkinson but matched another individual referred to as “Mr B.” The fact that this evidence was not available during the original trial is crucial.

Lawyer 2: Absolutely, it raises serious questions about the accuracy of the conviction. And the fact that this DNA evidence matches Mr. B, who is now implicated in the case, makes it even more significant.

Lawyer 1: Indeed, the CCRC found that this new DNA evidence alone could lead to the convictions being overturned, as it gives rise to a real possibility that Malkinson may not have been convicted or even prosecuted if it had been available at the time.

Lawyer 2: Right. But there were other grounds of appeal, too. One of them related to photographs of the victim’s hands that may not have been disclosed to the defense prior to the trial.

Lawyer 1: Yes, the defense argued that these photographs contradict Dr. Anderson’s evidence and support the victim’s account of scratching her attacker with her left hand.

Lawyer 2: It’s crucial to assess the significance of these photographs in light of the entire case. If they indeed contradict Dr. Anderson’s testimony, it could further undermine the prosecution’s case.

Lawyer 1: Agreed. We should also consider the issue of identification. The primary evidence against Malkinson was the eyewitness identifications by the victim and two other witnesses, Beverley Craig and Michael Seward.

Lawyer 2: But all three witnesses were cross-examined on the basis that they were honest but possibly mistaken in their identification of Malkinson. The judge’s directions to the jury were clear on this point.

Lawyer 1: The judge emphasized that the case hinged on the correctness of the identification evidence and reminded the jury of the weaknesses in the identifications, such as the absence of injuries on Malkinson’s face and the fact that Beverley Craig initially picked a different man during the identification procedure.

Lawyer 2: Right, and the judge also highlighted the issue of C’s memory regarding the scratch she believed she inflicted on her attacker’s face with her left hand.

Lawyer 1: That’s an important point because it goes to the heart of the case. If C’s memory about this detail is incorrect, it could cast doubt on her overall reliability as a witness.

Lawyer 2: Overall, it seems there were significant issues with the original trial, from the identification evidence to the lack of DNA evidence that could have exonerated Malkinson.

Lawyer 1: Absolutely. It’s a challenging case, but with the new DNA evidence and potential contradictions in the evidence, there’s a strong basis for the conviction to be revisited.

Lawyer 2: Agreed. The CCRC made the right call in referring this case to the court, and it’s now up to us to present a compelling case for Malkinson’s innocence based on this new evidence.

Lawyer 1: Indeed, we have a significant task ahead of us, but justice must prevail, and this case deserves a thorough reevaluation.

List of vocabulary and legal terminology with their Turkish meanings:

Acquittal – Beraat
Affidavit – Yeminli Beyan
Appeal – Temyiz
Attorney – Avukat
Bail – Kefalet
Case – Dava
Defendant – Sanık (ceza hukuku), Davacı
Deposition – Tanık İfadesi
Discovery – Delil Toplama
Injunction – Menfi Tespit Kararı
Judge – Hakim
Jury – Jüri
Lawsuit – Dava
Plaintiff – Davacı
Statute – Kanun
Summons – Davet Mektubu, Celpname
Testimony – Tanıklık
Verdict – Karar, hüküm
Witness – Tanık
Conviction – Mahkumiyet
Entreaties – Yalvarmalar
Scratched – Çizilmiş
Severed – Kesilmiş
Choked – Boğulmuş
Unconscious – Bilinçsiz
Forensic – Adli tıp
Prosecutor – Savcı
Cross-examined – Karşı sorguya çekilmiş
Quashed – Bozulmuş (yazıdaki mana), İptal edilmiş
Acquitted – Beraat etmiş
Remanded – Tutuklu
Offense – Suç
Incriminated – Suçlamak
Perpetrator – Fail
Allege – İddia etmek
Inculpatory – Suçlayıcı

Please note that legal terminology may vary between different legal systems and jurisdictions, so it’s important to consult legal professionals and resources specific to the Turkish legal system when needed.

Multiple Choice Test – Based on the Dialogue

Question 1: When did the attack on the young woman, referred to as “C,” occur?
a) 10th February 2003
b) 19th July 2003
c) 23rd July 2004
d) 26th July 2023

Question 2: What was Andrew Malkinson convicted of?
a) Attempted murder
b) Kidnapping
c) Robbery
d) Burglary

Question 3: Who is “Mr B” in the case?
a) A witness
b) The appellant’s lawyer
c) Another suspect
d) The judge

Question 4: What type of DNA analysis played a significant role in the case?
a) Mitochondrial DNA
b) Y-chromosome DNA
c) Nuclear DNA
d) RNA analysis

Question 5: What did the CCRC conclude about the new DNA evidence?
a) It was irrelevant to the case.
b) It strongly supported Malkinson’s conviction.
c) It could lead to overturning the convictions.
d) It was fabricated evidence.

Answers:

1) b) 19th July 2003
2) a) Attempted murder
3) c) Another suspect
4) b) Y-chromosome DNA
5) c) It could lead to overturning the convictions.