The Appeals process is full of legal argument and case references that can be manipulated to achieve any outcome. A few years ago I remember reading that the judicial system was to lean towards the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law. Gary's appeals have only highlighted that this policy is not being adopted (especially in WA) and that common sense has no place in the interpretation of the law.

In the appeal review by the judges they conceded that the evidence (other than Reid's evidence) was not enough to convict, and that Reid's evidence was highly "suspect," but still did not allow the appeal. I suspect the result of the appeal to be based upon outside pressures and not the evidence. However in the interests of justice you can read for yourselves the full transcripts.

In the case of Ramah Goodlet recanting her evidence it seems that the learned judge(s) accept the testimony of a drug induced and bullied witness, but when she cleans up her act and realises what she did and then recants her evidence, the judge(s) deem her to be unreliable. Please give me strength.

Ramah has now filed a motion to have this reviewed but that review will take for ever as if they deem her to be unreliable then that ruling must be applied to her evidence during the case and therefore force all her testimony to be unreliable, thereby weakening the Crown's case. If she is deemed to be reliable then the recantation should be allowed, with the same result.

Also much of Gary's appeals correctly suggests that the trial judge did not do his job by erring in the allowable evidence and not giving a sufficient warning to the jury in relation to Reid's tainted testimony. The summing up in other cases involving Reid's evidence were text book and resulted in a full acquittal for all the accused. But in Gary's trial the judge glossed over the required warnings but the Appeal judge(s) deemed the warnings to be sufficient and the evidence to be admissible when it was not. Compare the summing up of the three cases below:

R v White - Summing up of Scott J

(T/s 661) "In carrying out your task, I will be necessary for you to look very carefully at
the evidence which the witnesses have given in this case."
(T/s 679) "Regardless of whether or not he was in any way connected with the killing of Mr. Tapley or offered to help cleanup, you should consider Mr. Reid's evidence with very considerable care."
(T/s 680) "....for that reason you should give very careful consideration to Mr. Reid's evidence before you act upon it." -and¬"....but the important thing is for you to consider Mr. Reid's evidence with considerable suspicion and to look at with very great care and scrutiny before acting upon it in all the circumstances of this case"
(T/s 684) "'I have spent some time dealing with of Mr. Reid and the warnings that you need to take care with his evidence, because I'm sure you will appreciate that his evidence is critical to the crown case."

R v Slater- Summing up of Anderson J

(T/s 3373) "It will be quite obvious to you that the prosecution case stands or falls on the evidence of Reid." -and
"If you took Reid out and put all the other evidence together, the accused would have no case to answer. I would tell you to acquit him."
(T/s 3374) "These are reasons why you would examine his evidence with great care
before convicting anyone of a serious crime based on it."
(T/s 3375) "The experience of the law is that it is dangerous to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of accomplices." -and¬"...but because of the special danger that the evidence may not be true you must be very careful before doing so."
(T/s 3376) 'I warn you as a matter of law' that you should exercise considerable caution before you proceed to convict the accused on Reid's uncorroborated evidence." (T/s 3382) "There's nothing outside Reid's evidence which directly implicates him."
(T/s 3417) "As I said to you in the early part of my address the prosecution case rests on the Reid's evidence. It is that evidence which must persuade you to the
requisite degree of satisfaction, satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt...."
(T/s 3417-8) "...you don't look at Reid's evidence in isolation but if it was not available to you the whole of the rest of the evidence put together wouldn't sustain a finding of guilty beyond reasonable doubt in this case."

R v Slater and Others - Summing up of Fenbury DCJ

(T/s 3630) " It was suggested to Reid, you might think quite firmly, that his statement had been moulded by police input and had gradually evolved into a statement weaving the other accused into his own adventures in order to give the police what it was he thought they wanted of him."
(T/s 3633) "You will remember that I spoke to you on 21 July just prior to Sidney Reid being called as a witness in this case, and I highlighted to you the fact that he was an accomplice and, therefore, a witness of what the law considers to be a suspect category.'"
(T/s 3634) ..... the prosecution case stands or falls on the evidence of Sidney John Reid. The other evidence in the case ....... could not possibly sustain a verdict of guilty beyond reasonable doubt by itself or by themselves. It couldn't." -and-
"Reid is an untruthful and immoral person..."
-and-
"The description of him being a consummate and experienced liar with a proven capacity to evade detection may not be an exaggeration." -and-
"There are many reasons for an accomplice to tell lies and falsely implicate other people."
(T/s 3635) "The experience of the law is that it is dangerous to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice." -and-
"You may accept Reid's evidence, you may act on it, but because of the special danger that the evidence may not be true, you must be very careful before doing so."
(T/S 3636) "I warn you as a matter of law that you should exercise considerable caution before you proceed to convict the accused on Reid's uncorroborated evidence. You may do so but it would be dangerous."

Now here is the most important point

At Gary's application for leave to appeal to the High Court it was stated that Reid had signed an agreement with the DPP that if he gave false evidence for the Crown at any trial he would have his reduced sentence and conditions re-evaluated. That agreement was the reason for the trial judge to allow the jury to consider his evidence and the reason for the "light" warning.

Clearly in the other cases involving Reid's evidence, the jury and judges deemed Reid has lied. By his own admission at the Ora Banda trial, where his responses were different to those given in evidence at Gary's trial previously, and when ask whether he was lying now or whether he had lied at Gary's trial his response was that, "l'm not lying now." Clearly this proves Reid had given false evidence both at Gary's and the other trials,  SO WHY HAS REID'S SENTENCE AND CONDITIONS NOT BEEN RE-EVALUATED?

The police and the DPP will never let this occur. Should Reid's lenient sentence and perks be removed he will then implicate the police and the DPP in the fabrication of evidence in Gary's case. Reid is laughing at them as he has then over the proverbial barrel.

There is a very simple way to test my theory and all common-sense thinking people know what that is. This is where all us ordinary people can right an injustice by putting pressure on the WA judicial system for this re-evaluation to occur. Reid is a untruthful and immoral convicted double murderer and does not deserve any special deals. If the DPP and police have nothing to hide then why aren't they doing this?