Not or ever will do jury service
One is legally bound to attend jury service if summoned, only if exceptional personal circumstances dictate then one can opt out, even then this can be overturnedPosted 6 years agoDenDennisMember
I hope they go down for it, just remembering the attitude of the swaggering low-lifes coming out of court when they got off first time round.Posted 6 years ago
I think the judge wants them down as well. he is allowing the jury to take on board videos of them talking about wanting to stab black peoples for a laugh.deludedMember
Purely on the basis of the fact that hundreds of years of legal convention, and a fundamental tenet of the law and our constitution has been eroded just to prosecute these two
Z11 – are you referring to the double jeopardy rule that was repealed under the Criminal Justice Act 2003?
There have been hundreds of years of many things that I’m happy to do without. The abolition of that rule has lead to a number of convictions and seen justice served.Posted 6 years ago
Deluded – yes, double Jeopardy, and the repeal came directly out of a recommendations in the Macpherson report into the Lawrence killing.
I simply think that rewriting one of the foundations of your constitution and law based up one one case is a very, very dangerous road to go down – especially where in reality the original trial should never have happened on the evidence – you’ll recall that it was originally a private prosecution case…
It has subsequently lead to a precedent where we’ve seen mission creep leading to the loss of right to trial by jury, the effective repeal of habeas corpus and laws permitting imprisonment without trial, and evidence obtained through torture being presented to the courts in a pretty fundamental recasting of our constitutional rights, all because of the precedent set by this case…Posted 6 years ago
`Zulu it has not lead to all you say these have also happened but there is no causality involved.Posted 6 years ago
trial by jury has been reduced due to complicated fraud cases collapsing and pure cost iirc – it has nothing to do with lawrence or double jeopardy
In reality would it matter if they were tried for the offence or perjury and perverting the course of justice as say the noble Lord Archer was when he was effectively tried for the same thing twice.
Why not just convict him/them whomever of what he/they did originally?loddrikMember
I think they will be and there will be pressure to do so, i have a feeling that if this were not such a high profile racism case with all the baggage that has gone before tgen they’d have gotten off. Im sure there will be another huge outcry if they get off and they’ll find another reason to try them again further down the line.Posted 6 years ago
If you apply ‘reasonable doubt’ to the letter (as a Jury). The defences argument on contamination, shared room for storing evidence, etc etc may place doubt in one or more Juror? If directed to find not guilty if unsure etc etc. Tbh the facts ‘reported’ came across as an attempt to fog Jurors on the reasonable doubt question.
Question- why only two charged this time? Fibres and blood- only theirs found linking them?
Edit- its not my topic. I’m not going down that road on someone elses. Back ontopic please 🙂 (or spoil the c456 one as question answered!)Posted 6 years agodeludedMember
What evidence do you have for the assertions expressed in your last paragraph – not too sure I’d go along with all that!
I viewed it as a ludicrous judicial anachronism that needed to be removed – having no place in modern English law. The lawmakers at that time could not have conceived of the advances that would come about in relation to investigative techniques and forensic evidence, which can surface subsequent to a persons acquittal etc.
An example – http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/press_releases/145-10/Posted 6 years ago
Good point. They were directed not to carry out any research outside the courtroom.
My viewpoint is skewered by what the media reported about the defences argument. So I have almost (hopefully) a parallel world view on the case. (Skewered to make good copy/anger readers)Posted 6 years ago
ludicrous judicial anachronism that needed to be removed
You could say that about the right of the jury to return a perverse verdict of not guilty – what possible lessons could 340 year old examples like Bushel’s Case have for us today with a democratically elected government and all that?
but then we get cases involving peace campaigners and environmentalists, and official secrets acts being broken, and perverse verdicts being returned, and you think “whoa, wait a minute, maybe there are lessons there after all1”
All I’m saying, is that you mess around with the tenets of constitutional law at your peril!
Right to trial by jury itself could easily be argued to be an anachronism, now we’ve lost it in “complex fraud cases” where next? what other cases don’t need a jury? Terrorist cases maybe? A jury cannot be trusted with all that sensitive secret information, and so the canker spreads…
The lessons of history are there for us to learn from!
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBiLT3LASk&feature=related[/video]Posted 6 years agoElfinsafetyMember
Thing is though, the Law must reflect the times in which we live, and evolve according to the technologies/science we have available to us for gathering evidence and stuff. There are cases where sufficient technology needed to gather evidence required to convict a person was not available at the time of their trial, but subsequently became available.
Should a guilty person walk free, if it transpires later that there is in fact substantial evidence against them? I don’t think so.
Trouble with this case, is the monumental screw up the first ‘trial’ was. I think it’s in the interests of Justice these two at least are back on trial.Posted 6 years agoBerm BanditMember
Suffice to say that a promise was made by a certain Assistant Commissioner at the time of the original case. He was well aware of how badly a certain Police Force had let down a certain family due to lack of diligence, perhaps competence,(but definitely not due to racism). At the time said Assistant Police Commissioner let certain people who were only able to walk away due to said Police failings, know that whatever else happened he and the force who had failed said family would never give up and would constantly seek justice for said family for the rest of their lives.
Hoorah, for justice, common sense, and fair play. IF the twunts get off here’s to the next time we see them in court regardless of the reason. Here’s hoping they and their ilk never get to sleep easy, and that never again will such things be allowed to go unpunished.
(GMP We are watching you!)Posted 6 years ago
The topic ‘Stephen Lawrence’ is closed to new replies.