‎"Joanne Fraill just checked into Her Majesty's Prison"

Chat Forum

‎"Joanne Fraill just checked into Her Majesty's Prison"

152 posts & 44 voices | Started 11 months ago by xiphon | Latest reply from Junkyard

Tags:

No tags yet.

Pages: « Previous 1…345 Next »

Edukator - Member

Accusing others of ignorance, TJ, when you've never worked in the legal system and they have. Read back, there is absolutely nothing to imply I don't understand how the system works and plenty to show I do. How much do you know about other European legal systems? Enough to label them inquisitorial, I think not.

In a credentials war you'll lose and refering to me as ignorant and incapable of understanding the system the height of irony. Would you have me as a juror given my level of ignorance? Of course not. You'll be thankful to know that I haven't qualified for UK jury service for over 20 years.

Posted 11 months ago #
Edukator - Member

Would you like me to cite European cases for you to read, TJ?

Posted 11 months ago #
Lifer - Member

feel free to ignore this point again.

Done!

Posted 11 months ago #
TandemJeremy - Member

You do show your ignorance however. Go read up on those cases. all aquittals against the direction of the judge.

the intimidating judge with the verdict he wants rather than seriously questioning the validity of the prosecution's case.

~Shows your ignorance strongly. There is not often a verdict the judge wants. Sometimes a judge will direct on a point of law but juries will ignore this as in the cases I list. a Its not for the jury to question the prosecutions case. Thats the defence lawyers role.

As for your idea of testing for juries - thats removing a basic cornerstone of British justice.

~So no matter what qualifications you have you do show your ignorance and lack of understanding of UK law and court procedures

do yourself a favour - look up those case and learn something.

Posted 11 months ago #
TandemJeremy - Member

Edukator - Member

Would you like me to cite European cases for you to read, TJ?

And what relevance would that have to the role of the jury in a UK court?

Posted 11 months ago #
konabunny - Member

I'm convinced that the reason that juries go along so easily with the Crown Prosecution service and police

Who says juries go along easily with the prosecution and the police?

How much do you know about other European legal systems? Enough to label them inquisitorial, I think not.

What does that mean?

Posted 11 months ago #
Edukator - Member

Judges aren't allowed to be jurors, Junkyard. They are very much a part of the system and jurors need to be able to challenge judges and the judical system and stop it in its tracks when they sense injustice.

Posted 11 months ago #
TandemJeremy - Member

Edukator - go read up on those cases.

Also on how UK courts work

You are asking the jury to take on the role of the defence lawyers

Posted 11 months ago #
crazy-legs - Member

Congratulations konabunny on being able to spot the link there. Bermbandit: I put the in because the arguing on this thread and some of the comments just reminded me of that particular scene, not cos I believe the judicial system to be so fundamentally flawed that it requires a re-write.

Posted 11 months ago #
Edukator - Member

You're the one that suddenly brought in a comparison with Europe, TJ. You posted four cases for me to read, I thought you might appreciate some reading matter too. Kona, I don't think TJ knows enough about European justice systems to label them inquisitorial. I know enough about one to consider it every bit as fair as the British one but less dependant on wealth and social status while being based on the presuption of innocence with the onus on the prosecution to prove guilt - far from inquisitional.

Ask the Birmingham six how easily jurors go along with the prosecution and the police, Kona. Ask those that were jailed for crimes they didn't commit by juries that never questioned trumped up charges.

Posted 11 months ago #
Edukator - Member

I have no intention of being ordered around by soemone that calls me ignorant, TJ. Your use of the imperative does you no favours on this forum.

Posted 11 months ago #
konabunny - Member

I don't think TJ knows enough about European justice systems to label them inquisitorial. I know enough about one to consider it every bit as fair as the British one

"Inquisitorial" just means the judge takes an active role in investigating as opposed to our "adversarial" system. It's a perfectly accurate, unobjectionable standard term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system

You've brought up your "credentials" and your experience in numerous legal systems - in what capacity was that, then? Because if you're going to make absolute howlers like not knowing what an inquisitorial legal system is (and not have the wit to google it)...

Posted 11 months ago #
Berm Bandit - Member

perhaps avoid miscarriages of justice such as the Birmingham six.

What utter tosh. The jury of the 6 convicted on the basis of the evidence that was placed before them. The issue was that the evidence was to say the least suspect, and this led to the royal commission on Criminal justice, and a new appeals process and methodolgy for reveiwing criminal cases, not to mention the disbanding of the seriously corrupt West Midlands Serious Crimes Squad who fitted the 6 up. It had absolutely nothing to do with the Jury system being in any way flawed. The original issue was in 1975 and the legal changes to rectify those miscarriages were on the statue book by 1997.

What all that has to do with this case 36 years later and 14 years after the legal system has been reveiwed and changed beats me. The issue is nothing to do with the womans ability to be a juror, she clearly had the wit to understand what she was doing was wrong. shes says as much herself.

To try to suggest that we change the jury system on this basis case is like suggesting that we put Drug dealers in charge of policing on the basis that they will have more empathy with the criminals.

Posted 11 months ago #
uplink - Member

Judges aren't allowed to be jurors

Yes they are, have a read of the Criminal Justice Act 2003

Posted 11 months ago #
Edukator - Member

I'm asking the jury to doubt police statements just as they should doubt the word of the accused. A juror should give equal credibility to the prosecution and defence and I feel that too often that is not the case. The result is too frequent miscarriages of jutice. Jurors need to be well-informed, confident people capable of being a match for both the prosecution and defence lawyers.

Posted 11 months ago #
Edukator - Member

DNA testing has allowed retrial and aquital of many prisoners tried and imprisoned by juries. Where data on the profile of the people freed exists the failings of peer justice become all too apparent. Check the colour of those convicted of rape in the US and the colour of the police officers that falsified evidence.

Posted 11 months ago #
crankboy - Member

"You'll be thankful to know that I haven't qualified for UK jury service for over 20 years." There we have it Educator you are either a member of the royal family a criminal insane or have not lived in the country for 20 years . That latter may explain why your views on the jury system are so out of date.

Oh and France and Italy both have inquisitorial systems.

Jurors discuss the case in private and decide on the evidence presented to them in court by two relatively equally well equipped and trained Advocates . They are well informed by the Trial process the whole point of a trial in the adversarial system is that the jury do not make up evidence from their own knowledge and research. Hence the famous "and who are the Beatles " judicial quote. They do not have to stand up to anybody they decide in secret and their spokesperson then delivers a two word (at most ) verdict.

This case is not about someone so educationally subnormal she could not perform the task of Juror . It is about someone so morally bankrupt she chose not to. She did do her own research she did breach the confidentiality of the jury discussion and she communicated with a defendant .

You may object to the Jury system but one bad juror does not make your argument valid no matter how hard you try to mould the facts.

Posted 11 months ago #
Berm Bandit - Member

Edukator : Now if you were talking about half wits who troll on STW forum being barred from jury service you'd have my vote straight away

Posted 11 months ago #
TandemJeremy - Member

Thing is edukator - if you read up on those cases I posted you would realise that your basic premise is wrong. Juries do give common sense verdicts that are against the strict interpretation of the law.

you also are clearly ignorant on the various roles of the participants in a UK court.

The prosecution lawyer represents the crown, the defence lawyer obviously the defendant, the judge is impartial and represents the law, the Jury represents the public.

you are asking for a massive change in the way the UK law works to fix a flaw that you only think exists because of your lack of understanding of how the legal system in the UK works

so lets here some credentials then. You have claimed to be a teacher but were unable to substantiate it. Indeed actually you have since denied being a teacher. What is your experience of Uk law?

Mine is purely that of an interested layman in criminal law although I have done a university course in Civil law. However I have followed court cases and discussion because I am interested in civil liberties.

Edit - there was a recent criminal trial that collapsed because the police officers evidence was ruled unreliable by the judge! IIRC

Posted 11 months ago #
Lifer - Member

DNA testing has allowed retrial and aquital of many prisoners tried and imprisoned by juries

Did they have the DNA evidence at the original trial?

Posted 11 months ago #
Edukator - Member

You are no doubt right, Uplink. Going way back abattoir workers were not accepted, then there was a long list of people in the legal professions until they retired and I haven't looked at the 2003 act.

Posted 11 months ago #
yunki - Member

edukator.. you made a silly comment at the start of this thread and have spent the rest of it trying to dig yourself out by concocting some cock and bull ideology that you're making up as you go along..

give it a rest surely..?

I'm asking the jury to doubt police statements just as they should doubt the word of the accused. A juror should give equal credibility to the prosecution and defence and I feel that too often that is not the case.

why..?
And how would it be fairer to be judged by better educated people..? What makes a cleverer person more just..?

The only people I've ever met to have done jury service are at best pot-smoking hippies and at worst sympathetic to the criminal underclass..

peers if you like..

Which brings us back around to your original point..
If people couldn't be prosecuted for behaving in ways that you consider moronic.. then our entire prison system would be laying empty and forgotten..

Have a little break mate... your brain must be getting hot

Posted 11 months ago #
Edukator - Member

More accusations of ignorance and lying about my credentials as a teacher now too, TJ.

"Expert witness", was what they introduced me as in British courts.

How would you like me to prove I was a teacher? Would a copy of my dusty, faded old PGCE do?

Posted 11 months ago #
crikey - Member

How would you like me to prove I was a teacher?

How accurate are you with one of these?

Posted 11 months ago #
Edukator - Member

Well, as usual the STW posse run out of rational arguments and resort to insult and accusations of lying. Till the next time chaps and chapesses, time to chop some wood.

Posted 11 months ago #
crankboy - Member

Educator I assume you were not introduced as an Expert on The Law Of England and Wales(or Scotland or Northern Ireland) or the psychology of Juries?

Posted 11 months ago #
TandemJeremy - Member

I thought I saw a denial from you of being a teacher. if not my mistake.

However an expert witness does not make you an expert on jurisprudence. I too have been called as an expert witness.

You really do need to look at those cases as they disprove your basic premise.

Posted 11 months ago #
Berm Bandit - Member

.......has he gone?

Posted 11 months ago #
TandemJeremy - Member

So - your qualifications and credentials as an expert on jurisprudence?

Posted 11 months ago #
Edukator - Member

I'd missed crankboys post. In France you can elect to be tried by "jurée populaire". The jury will be composed of people over 23 that are literate. You are presumed innocent.

I no longer teach, TJ. Your posting style is inquisitional and rather destructive on this forum. I'm fully aware of what case law and jurisprudence are all about having had to read through lists of cases to find precedents to support my witness statements.

Posted 11 months ago #
Berm Bandit - Member

Damn!

Posted 11 months ago #
crankboy - Member

Educator I'd happily hold myself out as an expert on the English criminal legal system albeit especially in view of yesterdays performance a fallible one. I know little of the French but a quick google suggests that the french Inquisitorial system has little option to elect a jury trial
" Criminal court proceedings can be overseen by a juge dd'instruction. The judge who is appointed to the case is in charge of preparing the case and assessing whether it should come to court. In legal jargon, this system is known as inquisitorial, as opposed to the adversarial system used in Common Law legal systems.
In court, the judge or judges arbirate between the the prosecution and the defence, both of which are generally represented by their lawyers, or avocats. The French judicial system does not have recourse to juries except in assize courts.
If the case goes to appeal, the arguments of the prosecution and the defence are taken over by appeals specialists known as Avoués. "

genuinely in a spirit of enlightenment can you clarify your point?

Posted 11 months ago #
TandemJeremy - Member

Edukator - Member

I no longer teach, TJ

Oh bugger! Just realised I mixed you up with Don simon on your claims to be a teacher. Oops Sorry

Posted 11 months ago #
konabunny - Member

Edukator:

"Inquisitorial" just means the judge takes an active role in investigating as opposed to our "adversarial" system. It's a perfectly accurate, unobjectionable standard term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system

You've brought up your "credentials" and your experience in numerous legal systems - in what capacity was that, then?

Because if you're going to make absolute howlers like not knowing what an inquisitorial legal system is (and not have the wit to google it)...

I'm asking the jury to doubt police statements just as they should doubt the word of the accused.

This is not the law of England. In fact, the law is that there is not a balancing test between the dubiousness of the word of the accused and the word of the police (by which you probably mean prosecution witnesses). The law is that the prosecution should prove that the defendant is guilty of the offence beyond all reasonable doubt, which is a somewhat different test.

Your enthusiasm for the inquisitorial (now that we've all learned what that means) system of justice is perplexing considering your distrust of wily lawyers, considering the process in the cour d'assises actually involved a conclave of judges with lay people. If there were ever a situation that were prone to "professional advantage", that would be it.

Your supposed having appeared as an expert witness doesn't speak for your supposed "credentials" to speak about comparative legal practice or procedure.

Basically, you know nothing, you're a bullshitter and you should crawl back under your bridge.

Posted 11 months ago #
Edukator - Member

Dear me, Kona, one expresses an opinion and gets character assissinated.

Now if I apparently know nothing and should therefore not express an opinion why do you support a system in which jurors that know nothing are obliged to express an opinion?

If you'd read your own Wiki page on the inquisitorial system in France you'd have got as far as:

"However, this is no longer the case"

Under current French law:

"If the examining judge decides there is a valid case against a certain suspect, the accused is bound over for an adversarial trial by jury. The examining judge does not sit on the trial court vested with trying the case and is in fact prohibited from sitting for future cases involving the same defendant."

The French system is now adversarial.

Now I could launch into a tyrade of insults but would rather STWers form their own opinion on who is bullshitting based on reading the Wiki link you provided in detail (rather than reading the heading and jumping to the wrong conclusion).

Edit: I've edited the second quote as my first cut and paste missed a bit I wanted.

Posted 11 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Pages: « Previous 1…345 Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.

Singletrack Mountain Bike Magazine

Chat Forum

‎"Joanne Fraill just checked into Her Majesty's Prison"

Reply »

Don't miss…

Singletrack

Website & Forums

Exits