I have just been listening to some commentator suggesting that the Patel case will go to the appeal court, & then to the high court. He went so far to suggest that there might be a retrial, in the lower court first. How many trials should one bloke get?

This does seem to be the standard procedure for these things.

So why bother with all this rubbish, spending millions on lawyers, judges & the hangers on, in the lower courts. Let’s just have everything go straight to the high court, or some scaled down version of it, from which there is no appeal. Surely our legal profession can make enough money with just one trial for these crimes

...and spend billions readjusting our entire law and how our entire society operates?. Any idea how many people would be affected by that?. Rhetorical....obviously, you wouldn't.

Yeah, great plan.

Yeah, hang 'em first and have a trial later.

Good one, Hasbeen.

If only Hasbeen...the legal fraternity have had it all set up perfectly for themselves with their Law Society and the Judicial Commission covering their backsides using and retaining archaic legislation and Acts dating back to the 1900's.

Why would Government wish to change their processes and legislation? Most benefit with the exception of taxpayers. Any person who requires legal advice in a one liner just ask me. Been there, done that in a unique case whereby I learned how to win on legal points and the best approach for situations, in addition to assisting many other friends and relatives.

Changing the system? I would love to live and see the day when an honest group of politicians actually get together and commence a project to change the corrupt systems via updating archaic legislation allowing the many current loopholes!

Maybe some older folk can not climb the stairs?

So you want every case adjudicated by a full 5 judge appeal court panel?

The point of the appeal court is to review the finer legal points of the case. Considering previously never applied parts of criminal negligence were employed to convict Patel, the appeal will not only determine Patel's fate, but the consequences of mis diagnosis etc for all medical staff from now on.

For example the neurosurgeon who performed risky brain surgery to remove a tumour (with the consent of the patient) may now face prison if the patient dies. There may be sudden reluctance to take any risk on behalf of the patient, even if the surgery is a lower risk than the disease.

So there is a lot more riding on the result than can sit on the shoulders of a single judge.