|
|
Post by willien on Dec 7, 2023 10:40:23 GMT
I watched a lot yesterday and thought that Johnson was let off fairly lightly. I was quite surprised because I've seen the barrister (Mr Keith?) give others a much harder time. Obviously, I think that Johnson should have been given a torrid time. I was also quite upset by the attitude of some of the protestors. My own attitude (to issues in general - trying to move away from the particular of Johnson) is to keep an open mind until I've heard enough fact and then decide. One of the protestors, when asked, said, "there's nothing that he can say that will make me change my mind." That was before the BoJo interrogation had started. Glad that person wasn't on a jury! Mick I think we need more like-minded protesters on juries, save time and money on expensive trials... As for Boris, no-one is able to make him squirm, he's an inveterate pathological lying whatever, so he'll always be correct in his judgement, even though everyone else knows the truth. He also has obviously had extensive ans expensive coaching (wonder how we will be paying for it) and for once put in the wiork to learn his lines. |
|
|
|
Post by mick on Dec 7, 2023 11:24:58 GMT
I think we need more like-minded protesters on juries, save time and money on expensive trials...Really? Forget politics. Would you really like to be in the dock and have your fate decided by someone who had already made up their mind and who admitted that nothing said at the trial (in your defence) would change their mind?Mick |
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Dec 7, 2023 11:45:07 GMT
I think we need more like-minded protesters on juries, save time and money on expensive trials...Really? Forget politics. Would you really like to be in the dock and have your fate decided by someone who had already made up their mind and who admitted that nothing said at the trial (in your defence) would change their mind?Mick Clearly my wokeness doesn't come across in my posts... Thank God (or who/what ever) for juries, occasionally a perverse jury makes the wrong decision for the right reason. It's why they make some offences that are imprisonable triable by magistrate only, because they know a jury would not convict as the offence is not an offence worth sending anyone to prison for. |
|
|
|
Post by mick on Dec 7, 2023 18:19:55 GMT
I’m afraid that our understanding of the UK legal system differs very materially.
Your sentence ‘wrong result for right reason’ makes no sense at to me. Can you explain?
There are three ‘grades’ of offence
1. Summary - low level offence tried in the magistrates court by a panel of two or three magistrates. Maximum prison that can be handed down is six months but I think that two sentences for two offences might y
Take that to a year.
2. ‘Either way offences’. Can be tried in either a magistrates court or crown court depending on severity. The defendant can elect for a jury trial in the crown court under most circumstances.
3 indictable offence. Always in the crown court and always with a jury except in very special circumstances such as jury tampering and, maybe, national security.
That’s all I remember from the little law I studied some 60 years ago. Maybe you see why I found your reply to be extraordinary.
Mick
|
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Dec 7, 2023 18:22:48 GMT
So you don't remember Clive Ponting?
|
|
|
|
Post by willien on Dec 7, 2023 18:35:58 GMT
I’m afraid that our understanding of the UK legal system differs very materially. Your sentence ‘wrong result for right reason’ makes no sense at to me. Can you explain? There are three ‘grades’ of offence 1. Summary - low level offence tried in the magistrates court by a panel of two or three magistrates. Maximum prison that can be handed down is six months but I think that two sentences for two offences might y Take that to a year. 2. ‘Either way offences’. Can be tried in either a magistrates court or crown court depending on severity. The defendant can elect for a jury trial in the crown court under most circumstances. 3 indictable offence. Always in the crown court and always with a jury except in very special circumstances such as jury tampering and, maybe, national security. That’s all I remember from the little law I studied some 60 years ago. Maybe you see why I found your reply to be extraordinary. Mick Er - Our Legal Systems. Otherwise looks your comments on the English system looks erudite but I have no knowledge of the English courts nitti gritti.
|
|
|
|
Post by willien on Dec 7, 2023 18:41:48 GMT
So you don't remember Clive Ponting? IIRC where the Jury, very sensibly they obviously knew more about Constitutional Law than the superanuated gammon on the bench, said **** *** to the judge who instructed that the interests of the State and the government of the day were one and the same thing? |
|
|
|
Post by mick on Dec 7, 2023 18:54:17 GMT
So you don't remember Clive Ponting? No I don't. Even if I had I would not have changed a syllable of what I wrote. The fact that a single case was in dispute doesn't bring down the whole house.
Mick
|
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Dec 7, 2023 19:01:23 GMT
So you don't remember Clive Ponting? No I don't. Even if I had I would not have changed a syllable of what I wrote. The fact that a single case was in dispute doesn't bring down the whole house.
Mick
But that's the point, when being tried by a jury if enough members are of the same mind then perverse acquittals can happen, if a magistrate tries the case and they are minded to acquit, then they may find it's a long time to the next case... I too have studied the law, and although it was only at A level the points you make are as true today as they were 30 years ago or 60 years ago. Imagine Lord Denning and a perverse jury...what fun! |
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Dec 7, 2023 19:03:18 GMT
So you don't remember Clive Ponting? IIRC where the Jury, very sensibly they obviously knew more about Constitutional Law than the superanuated gammon on the bench, said **** *** to the judge who instructed that the interests of the State and th government of the day were one and the same thing? There may have also been some political chicanery as well...who knows, jurors aren't allowed to tell... |
|
|
|
Post by willien on Dec 7, 2023 19:03:23 GMT
To revisit - my take on "wrong result for right reason", is that there are occassions when jurors sincerely believe the B. is guilty but do not convict.
Reasons may vary. They may recon that despite their belief guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. "Reasonable" is subjective and they need to interpret it in the context of legal arguments they are not familiar with. If in Scotland there is the further complication of the bastard verdict whereby they can say "Not Proven". I.e. We think he did it but, either we genuinley believe (despite our aforesaid belief) that the test of beyond reasonable doubt has been met, or we are just woosing out.
Throughout my law degree us undegraduates were told that Not Proven was a) unique [i.e the english do not have it which makes us superior] and, b) really good because it let juries say we think you did it [but we are nevertheless letting you off scot(tish justice) free]. There is a great deal of concern that Juries use NP as a cop out. Scottish defence lawyers are fighting tooth and nail no stop its abolishment - which rather supports the view that...
To get back fom my digression - I would have thought "juries can make the wrong decision for the right reason" was easily understood.
|
|
|
|
Post by willien on Dec 7, 2023 19:11:55 GMT
No I don't. Even if I had I would not have changed a syllable of what I wrote. The fact that a single case was in dispute doesn't bring down the whole house.
Mick
But that's the point, when being tried by a jury if enough members are of the same mind then perverse acquittals can happen, if a magistrate tries the case and they are minded to acquit, then they may find it's a long time to the next case... I too have studied the law, and although it was only at A level the points you make are as true today as they were 30 years ago or 60 years ago. Imagine Lord Denning and a perverse jury...what fun! In law lectures when the Lecturer began with "In a judgement by Lord Denning..." a cheer went up - yes we are talking law students. Sadly, in his later years he abrubtly retired having got into what were described as bizarre disputes with neighbours and having made unpleasant remarks on race. In his day he was a colossus and always stood up for the little guy against big companies. Given that Common Law still matters some of his judgements may still provide protection for "the little guy" today. FWIW I do not remember him being quoted in Criminal Law. |
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Dec 7, 2023 19:16:18 GMT
But that's the point, when being tried by a jury if enough members are of the same mind then perverse acquittals can happen, if a magistrate tries the case and they are minded to acquit, then they may find it's a long time to the next case... I too have studied the law, and although it was only at A level the points you make are as true today as they were 30 years ago or 60 years ago. Imagine Lord Denning and a perverse jury...what fun! In law lectures when the Lecturer began with "In a judgement by Lord Denning..." a cheer went up - yes we are talking law students. Sadly, in his later years he abrubtly retired having got into what were described as bizarre disputes with neighbours and having made unpleasant remarks on race. In his day he was a colossus and always stood up for the little guy against big companies. Given that Common Law still matters some of his judgements may still provide protection for "the little guy" today. FWIW I do not remember him being quoted in Criminal Law. No they wouldn't let him near a criminal case...the man on the Clapham Omnibus would have gotten away with, on promissory estoppel " I won't do it again"...* *The last two thirds of the sentence are me being a perverse law student and most likely would never had happened... |
|
|
|
Post by willien on Dec 7, 2023 19:25:18 GMT
In one of my last on going departmental professional development courses on courts how to behave etc the presenter, a partner in significant if not household name firm, paused and said - "The more I read the cases the more I become convinced that Judges decide in the first 5 to 10 minutes which party has acted more reasonably and then twist everything to fit that view". That was quite an epiphany moment for particularly regarding the "Witter" case where the judge ruled out the entire limitation of liability clause because the whole agreement clause did not have appropriate exclusions. Judges, eh. Always the jokers.
|
|
|
|
Post by MJB on Dec 7, 2023 19:34:53 GMT
The same Lord Denning who thought he was above the law when if came to planning permission (he lost BTW). He sure as hell wasn't popular in mine and his hometown.
|
|
