Scotsroutes. They have to convict the acussed beyond reasonable doubt.
The doubt seems to be 'no DNA evidence'
Scotsroutes. They have to convict the acussed beyond reasonable doubt.
The doubt seems to be 'no DNA evidence'
If he's not guilty, she lied in court. I thought that was an offence?
Have a wee think why we don't have perjury cases after every court case where it's one person's word against another.
Google what happened when they retro-DNA tested lots of (mainly black) men in American jails for rape. It turned out that many were innocent and that the rapes had been committed by quite a small number of men. Hope that makes you think, Globalti. Frankly you succumbed to peer pressure and it's 50 : 50 you put an innocent man in jail.
It depends where the jury is.
I'm just astonished that you admit that anything other than your own assessment of the evidence influenced your vote. I hope the defendant finds this thread, in fact it's tempting to send it the papers to denounce an unsafe prosecution, as Emile Zola did.
I'm just astonished that you admit that anything other than your own assessment of the evidence influenced your vote.
Why do you think jurors go into a room to discuss things ?
So they can all sit in silence and stick with what they already thought.
Yup, juries are about as scientific/evidence based as homoeopathy. Unfortunately most people are affected by confirmation bias.
This despite the fact that not a shred of credible evidence had been produced and her story had varied depending on who she spoke to!
These trials aren't supposed to be death matches in which whoever "loses" gets their life and reputation destroyed. "Naming and shaming" or mob justice would only discourage victims of sexual assault from reporting their assaults to police. If there is a legitimate case for perjury, the CPS should consider it, but just because the defendant was acquitted it doesn't mean the complainant or any other witness lied.
it's tempting to send it the papers to denounce an unsafe prosecution, as Emile Zola did.
Did I name the Crown Court or even what end of the country?
Your profile gives your name and where in the country you are. A quick search of the voter register would probably find a whole lot more. As the Mods nicely to remove your post.
What is the time limit where you can talk about a trial? Is there a time limit or does it depend on the verdict?
CaptainFlashheart - Member
Neither party should be named unless there is guilt, or unless either party chooses to be named.
I disagree. If a name is public, other (alleged!) victims may realise that they're not alone and may come forward, eg Jimmy Savile and that taxi driver (can't remember his name).
It's a very, very difficult one.
the teaboy sums it up quite well. Thing is, each case is supposed to be judged on its merits. That's why we don't have a list of previous convictions read out in court. Having a backlog of other alleged victims should make no difference to a trial in progress.
Police/CPS evidence wouldn't be based on "He had sex with me" without colloborative evidence.
Who was prosecuting, if it was a HCA (pseudo-Barrister) they consider it as an "Ah well, better luck next time" case especially as he would employ a top-notch defence barrister who specializes in this sort of work.
[cynic]Quite an achievement to find 12 people who don't watch Coronation St/know who the accused is in Manchester[/cynic]
And the guilty tend to thank the jury.....
Thing is, each case is supposed to be judged on its merits. That's why we don't have a list of previous convictions read out in court. Having a backlog of other alleged victims should make no difference to a trial in progress.
Possibly but what's the prosecution and sentencing based on?
If it was one victim, Stuart Hall would not have been prosecuted and, even if he had, would not have received a custodial sentence.
the teaboy sums it up quite well. Thing is, each case is supposed to be judged on its merits. That's why we don't have a list of previous convictions read out in court.
You can, in certain cases, have bad character evidence including previous cons addmitted as evidence
No, she shouldn't be named. Many good reasons are given already in this thread.
However I do think there should be the possibility of charging an accuser - providing that thay can be shown beyond reasonable doubt (etc), to have lied and fabricated a case for their own ends. Whether of not that's the case here, I have no idea, and it would be for the police/CPS to decide. A case where the defendant is acquitted through weak evidence, i.e. not beyond reasonable doubt, doesn't automatically mean the accuser should be banged up for perjury or blackmail or libel or whatever.
Its a really difficult balancing act here as you have to weigh up conflicting rights
Often the accused is named to attract other victims into the open - none came forward in this case.
Also , as this thread shows,some will think it was lack of evidence rather than lack of doing the act so , in some peoples eyes, he will always be an accused sex offender rather than an innocent man.
Not sure how we prevent this damage tbh
As for naming the "victim" I cannot see what good will come of this tbh
If she is making up stories like this [ or it actually happened an no one believed here] she has enough issues to deal with without having her character publicly eviscerated by the media.
I worked with someone accused of abuse by his ex wife during a bitter divorce case. Despite being found innocent some staff would still not work with him or talk to him 3 years later. He was certainly a victim of crime and oad a huge price for a false allegation.
It very tough to make rules that cover it all as we all want the innocent protected and the guilty sent down
I dont have an answer as to how we balance these conflicting rights/responsibilities
personally im impressed that this thread hasnt descended into mud slinging chaos, been heavily moderated and ultimately locked.
very well done STW.
*schools are back?*
His life and career are in tatters.
Corronationenders is welcoming him back with open arms so not correct to say career in tatters.
So is his dad better now? Or is Ken going to stay there to help for a little while?
And the age of consent in Madagascar is 21, so for the uneducated that think paedophiles have something to do with age of consent, he's a paedophile.
I think the CPS prosecuted this case knowing evidence was weak, to provide the public with evidence that they are effective in these type of cases. The reality is that the recent Rochdale et al abuse cases, showed that in more complex cases they have been found wanting. Excellent recent 'file on 4' programme on this very subject.
A girl that lived two doors down from me when I was growing up decided to phone up childline one day and tell them a teacher was abusing her. She didn't give her name but they (childline) somehow worked out who she was. They alerted the police, teacher was arrested and suspended and an investigation took place. She eventually admitted it was complete nonsense but by that point the damage was done. The guy's reputation was in tatters. He was a bit eccentric so the knee jerk reaction was to assume he was guilty just because he was a bit odd. He had to leave the school and relocate his family elsewhere to try and start again.
CPS depending on area will run these cases on next to no evidence with out supporting evidence. historically we had a problem with these cases not being prosecuted because they are often difficult to win CPS and the police were criticised for this mow the pendulum has swung the other way.
Like many other public services CPS now are proactively managed by targets and imposed criteria more suitable to selling insurance or washing machines. Losing a case in court or convicting an innocent man is a better outcome for cps management than withdrawing a case which does not count as "an offence brought to justice."
On the original point if the victim can be shown to have lied she may well be prosecuted but that is unlikely to be the scenario . We presume innocence and require the prosecution to prove their case so the jury are sure of all elements of the offence . All we know in this matter is that 12 people could not be sure that she was telling the truth , if they thought she was probably telling the truth then their verdict would have to be not guilty.
That is why we don't name shame and humiliate her because to do so may well penalise some one who has done no wrong.
What right minded victim of crime would ever speak up if they knew that unless they could convince 12 strangers beyond reasonable doubt then they would be the one punished.
All we know in this matter is that 12 people could not be sure that she was telling the truth , if they thought she was probably telling the truth then their verdict would have to be not guilty.
junkyard it's not my version it is our system . He started presumed to be innocent his guilt has not been proven so he remains innocent. The criminal law involves an after the event assessment by people who were not there at the time ,of actions based on witness narrative and forensic deduction it will rarely achieve any accurate conclusion as to all the facts. So we are left in the end with saying we will not penalise someone unless the evidence makes us sure of guilt and if we cannot be sure we acquit.
We don't ask the jurors what they really thought as that simply unpicks the whole debate again and leads to endless rehashes also the sanctity of the jury room allows them to deal with the issues honestly to express their views openly within the group and then be protected afterwards.
He started presumed to be innocent his guilt has not been proven so he remains innocent.
For sure many will think no smoke without fire hence why it such a difficult balancing act.
" All we know in this matter is that 12 people could not be sure that she was telling the truth" means what it says " all we know " is a key part of the statement. We do not know where the jurors fell on the range of belief from sure of innocence to strongly believing in guilt but entering a reasonable doubt . Nor do we know if the jurors all were at the same point . All we can ever know with a not guilty verdict is that the jury were not sure of guilt as that is the question the law asks them. It is not my interpretation it is the law. I do not seek to imply any no smoke without fire guilt by accusation . The point is you cannot prosecute a witness for perjury off the back of a not guilty verdict because that verdict does not mean the witness was in fact not telling the truth.
I have just remembered IANAL and you are, puts tail between legs and retreats trying to save face
I still think there is a difference between not enough evidence to convict and innocent.
Being a lawyer just makes me look a bigger Richard when I get the law wrong on here . You could always move to Scotland I believe they give their juries three verdicts to chose from guilty, not guilty and not proven.
This topic has been closed to new replies.