[Closed] ?"Joanne Fraill just checked into Her Majesty's Prison"

Aktually Edukator, that's really quite rude of me. No need for that really.

I owe you an apology. I'm sorry.

Well, if nothing else this has taught me to keep my nose clean. The thought that my fate if found in the box might be in the hands of someone capable of generating the drivel on page one frightens the living bejesus out of me!

No worries Elfin, I no longer teach. 8)

My point, Junkyard, is that throwing people in prison for things such a gossiping on Facebook does not make Britain a safer place to live. I don't feel any more threatened when walking along a street in Britain than anywhere else in Europe and looking at crime statistics it's not bad in terms of burglary, robbery or violent crime in general. And yet more people are deprived of their freedom by the legal system. Why? Because it's a system based on revenge and intimidation IMO. Old Testament stuff.

Some people do need locking up because they are a threat to society but I think there are better ways of dealing with the vast majority of offenders who need help changing their ways rather than time in a crime academy (prison).

She hasn't gone to prison for gossiping on Facebook, she's gone to prison for contempt of court. I think that needs to be taken fairly seriously.

gossiping on Facebook does not make Britain a safer place to live

The reason she got chucked in the jug was becasue she caused a drugs trial to get abandoned. There is a high liklihood therefore that the defendants who do not appear to be your run of the mill street criminals, but somthing slightly higher up the evolutionary scale are therefore free to continue to do whatever it is they do. So I'd say theres a very direct link between her actions and the Britain being a less safe place to live.

You can dig up tenuous arguments as long as you like, but the facts remain the facts, she knowingly broke the law, and in so doing was well aware of the consequences. She is now suffering those consequences. No sympathy and I hope that through her actions and subsequent punishment others will receive some understanding of the link between rights and responsibility.

So we're back to making an example, and detering others rather than making the "punishment" fit the crime.

Following your argument to its logical conclusion, she should have been let off without any punishment at all on the basis that the chance of her re-offending was extremely low.

gossiping on Facebook does not make Britain a safer place to live.

You may be correct [ ie I generally agree] regarding our justice system being poor and draconian in general.

i don't understand why the case collapsed because of this. Yes, its a mis-trial, but why not just re-try the defendant? I can't see any reason why this wouldn't be possible? Surely the juror isn't going to know anything, other than the deliberations of *that* jury (which wouldn't be relevant in a re-trial) that the defendant doesnt?

So we're back to making an example, and detering others rather than making the "punishment" fit the crime.

Deterrence, punishment and sending messages to the public have always been among the purposes of sentencing. Rehabilitation is not the sole purpose of sentencing.

she is a victim of a sytem she clearly doesn't understand. What do expect if you put people that haven't got a clue in positions of responsibility? If it shows anything it's that the British justice system doesn't work.

The average jury:

[img] ?w=300&h=165[/img]

😉

Lets go then, c'mon Edukator, Crazy-legs et al. A detailed rundown of the vastly superior system of justice that you want to put in place that makes the current apparently archaic one redundant... lets be having you

[img] ?w=300&h=165[/img]

You forget of course that the person illustrated was something of an autodidact. I wouldn't mind him on a jury.

Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you.

Wrong character, that picture is

"Churches...Gravy..."

This is better than the trial.
In fact, I think there is every grounds for a trial by STW option to be written into the scrolls of ye olde law.
All rise.
Judge TJ preciding.

I already have, berm bandit. I propose testing all potential jurors. If through the test they don't demonstrate understanding of the legal system and the values of society then they're out.

Edukator = Oxymoron ....discuss

snot the first time the irony of the screen name has been pointed out..

Edukator - Member

I already have, berm bandit. I propose testing all potential jurors. If through the test they don't demonstrate understanding of the legal system and the values of society then they're out

so no jury of your peers then selected by random lot?

Edit a basic cornerstone of British justice - the concept of reasonableness. Thats what the normal person thinks is reasonable - the proverbial man on the clapham omnibus. Now this is decided by a jury ultimately - but if the jury is no longer representative of the UK population but only an elite small % of it?

Mainly because most people aren't aware that "the Edukators" refers to the film "Die Fetten Jahre sind Vorbei" in which the "edukators" are anti-capitalist activiists fighting social injustice.

TJ, I'm convinced that the reason that juries go along so easily with the Crown Prosecution service and police is that they adopt the role of humble serfs providing the intimidating judge with the verdict he wants rather than seriously questionaing the validity of the prosecution's case. I think a jury made up of people confident in their role (having passed a test) would be more likely to stand up for their views and perhaps avoid miscarriages of justice such as the Birmingham six.

"Die Fetten Jahre sind Vorbei" in which the "edukators" are anti-capitalist activiists fighting social injustice.

only til it starts seeming like hard work though hey.. 😉

If through the test they don't demonstrate understanding of the legal system and the values of society then they're out.

The driving test doesn't actually stop many people driving - how many people do you know who fail? But it does prevent them getting onto the road before they have the skills needed to drive safely. Why would a jury test be any different? Selection, a week's training, a test and then you get to be a juror for a couple of weeks.

Well that simply shows your ignorance. Juries often refuse to convict and give what seem like perverse verdicts. Often aquittals.

its not for the jury to question evidence - that's the defence lawyers job.

I think you are very confused about how British justice works - its adversarial and the jury decides between the defence and the prosecution. Unlike most European systems that are inquisitorial.

so - I suggest before you think about dismantling the basic cornerstones of British justice you need to actully find out a little about it.

Here is a few for you to look at Edukator

R v Ponting [1985]
R v Wilson (1996),
R v Blythe (1998)
R v Randle and Pottle (1991

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.

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

feel free to ignore this point again.

Done!

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 🙄

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.

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.

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.

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

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)...

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.

Judges aren't allowed to be jurors

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

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.

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.

"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.

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 🙄

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

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?

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.

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 [i]you[/i] consider moronic.. then our entire prison system would be laying empty and forgotten..

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

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?

[i]How would you like me to prove I was a teacher?[/i]

How accurate are you with one of these?

[img] [/img]

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.

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?

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.

.......has he gone?

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

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.

Damn! 🙄

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?

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

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

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

[/b]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.

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:

[i]"However, this is no longer the case"[/i]

Under current French law:

[i]"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." [/i]

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.

I'm not ot sure that wiki would be the absolute authority on this but it does clearly state the French system is Inquisitorial and also states that the final trial is now more like an adversarial one which clearly implies it is not an adversarial one .

back on to the essential point Joanne Fraill would be just as badly off under the french system as the English as she meets Educators report of the minimum standard for a french jury what with being over 23 and able to read and write.

It is also a rather weird world view that would keep a 19 year old genius out of the jury but a 24 year old literate fool in. Indeed being illiterate is not a marker for stupidity or impeded reasoning nor is the ability to write of itself a sign of a sound and rational mind.

Read again crankboy. The Wiki heading is misleading due to use of the word "modern" which includes the entire 20th and 21st centuries. You'll note that the "historical" part ends at the 19th century.

The "current" French trial by jury has all the elements of an adversarial system and non of the elements of an inquisitorail system. If you think that a curent French jury trial has an element that makes it inquisitorial please state what this element is.

How would you describe British magistrate court proceedings BTW? 😉

Your last post is a bunch of old fanny that waffles on about the different adversarial and inquisitorial elements of aspects of the French system.

It has nothing to say about:

- the fact that you claim not to be ignorant but you didn't know what the perfectly ordinary term "inquisitorial" meant (which shows that you don't know what you're talking about)

- the fact that the phrase "this is not longer the case" refers to the method of committal for trial, not the trial itself (which shows that you can't read). The committal still appears to be done by the bench (which is exactly what happens in England, by the way)

- the fact that the French system is not the only system that is inquisitorial, and that the fact that elements of it may be (pseudo-) adversarial doesn't mean that an inquisitorial system doesn't exist and the word "inquisitorial" isn't an apt word to describe it any more than the operation of the Coroner's Court means that the English system isn't adversarial (which shows that you can't think critically)

- your comment that you're "fully aware of what case law and jurisprudence are all about" and have mysterious "credentials" and "experience" (but don't state what they are)

- you flounced from this thread already.

I'd love to carry on with this gay repartee forever but I think I've come to the conclusion that on the balance of probabilities you're talking through your trousers and it's not worth pursuing this more.

Cheerio!

Joanne Fraill is in the slammer purely because she went against the will of a judge
You can push your attitude with the police, the lawyers and even the tax man but don't ever try it with a judge

This from the Sydney law review 2006
"1. An Introduction to the cour d’assises
The cour d’assises is the French jury court. It was introduced into France in 1791,closely modelled on the British criminal jury. In its present form it is comprised of three judges (a President and two assessors) and nine jurors who, since 1941, sit and deliberate together both on culpability and punishment. It has jurisdiction over
crimes, or offences punishable with 10 or more years imprisonment. A two-thirds majority (8 out of the 12) is required for any finding against the accused in relation to culpability. The jurors do not have access, as do the judges, to the dossier recording the investigation of the case before them and must rely on the oral evidence of witnesses as adduced by the presiding judge at the hearing. No
directions are given to the jurors by the presiding judge except that they are told that they must have an ‘intime conviction’ of guilt before they can convict. It will be apparent that the cour d’assises functions differently to an anglophone jury court particularly as regards differentiation of function between judge(s) and jurors."

Sorry for the long quote but if this is the current French model then while it takes as its inspiration the British criminal Jury it is still clearly Inquisitorial . The defining feature of The Inquisitorial method is the judges power to question witnesses and call evidence where as in the adversarial the parties select their witnesses and evidence and they ask the questions. Also note the Judge in the French system gets a vote on Guilt as do the assessors.
If I'm wrong please tell me I'm happy to learn and genuinely interested but please explain why both i and the Sydney law Journal are out of date.

The English (don't start TJ) magistrates system is adversarial as is The Crown Court some Magistrates some District Judges and some Crown Court Judges can try and become Inquisitorial but they can also get told to wind their neck in either politely or "with the very greatest respect".

Flounced, Kona? Nope, I took a break to cut wood and stated as much.

Please quote the entire post where you think I have demonstrated that I don't know what the inquisitorial system is. This is what I said and it is confirmed by the Wiki page you linked:

[i]"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."[/i]

I did think critically, look at the smiley after my reference to the British magistrates' court.

Fortunately other STWers can read. They can read through all my posts and clearly see that you are distorting what I have said.

If my statement that I've appeared as an expert witness in British courts on several cases isn't good enough for you, you are showing extremely bad faith. I've also stated on other threads that I worked as a translator for a French court in cases concerning British drug runners so I'll repeat it here (you can check the qualifications I'd need to do that).

The defence has access to the documents in the judges possession and the defence can therefore bring out the contents for the jury's examination during the the trial. The jury is therefore never denied information that either the prosecution or defence deem pertinent. Why do you think Lance never took on l'Equipe? Because l'Equipe would have had access to all the information collected by the police and the judge on Lance. There is therefore nothing inquisitorial in your first two paragraphs.

The judge in court (rather than the examining judge) directs proceedings but relies on the prosecution and defence lawyers to question witnesses and present evidence. Adversarial.

#hits refresh#

No-one. 🙁

Shall we do the German system now? I love watching the reenacted court cases on German TV on rainy mornings. It all looks pretty adversarial to me.

"No one" only me see mine from 55 mins ago which points out quite clearly how the French system is inquisitorial show me something that says the Sydney law review is wrong.

THE FUNCTION OF THE JUDGE IN THE FRENCH SYSTEM IN ASKING QUESTIONS DIRECTING THE EVIDENCE AND VOTING ON GUILT MAKE IT INQUISITORIAL.

I watched [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_(TV_series) ]Spiral[/url] last month and was really confused about Judge Roban's role. If this thread resolves nothing, as I suspect it will, at least it's enlightened me on the inquisitorial aspects of the French legal system, so thanks.

Shouting doesn't make you right. On the first point you are wrong.

It's the president that directs proceedings but the prosecution lawyers that present the case including evidence in their possession they deem pertinent. The defence responds in true adversarial fashion. All those present: jurors, president, accused and witnesses are free to ask questions of the adverse parties. The president's main role is to give everyone the chance to speak, not to dominate proceedings.

You are correct to say that the president has a vote. So do two other court officials. These officals are outnumbered 9 : 3 by the popular jury, 12 :3 on appeal.

You are exagerating the power of the president and ignoring the adversarial nature of the debate to suit your agenda, crankboy. The Wiki page linked by Kona is clear enough about the adversarial character dominates the curent system as the power of the judge has been reduced over the years, most recently following lost cases in the European court of human rights and measures to prevent a repeat of the Outrau affair.

Oi edukator - did you get your apology?

Been away we seem way OT and far beyond my knowledge and I lack the zeal to google , and create the façade of knowledge, unlike some of you

The driving test doesn't actually stop many people driving - how many people do you know who fail? But it does prevent them getting onto the road before they have the skills needed to drive safely. Why would a jury test be any different?

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.

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