There's an interesting report in the BBC news pages today at <https:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rkvxlkpx2o>. Looks like it's another "Post Office" case to avoid paying compensation for as long as possible.
On 19/03/2025 12:45, Jeff Layman wrote:
There's an interesting report in the BBC news pages today at <https:// >>www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rkvxlkpx2o>. Looks like it's another "Post >>Office" case to avoid paying compensation for as long as possible.
To prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he had not committed the crimes >sounds a very high bar.
I guess there was no other suspect in the running either.
On 19/03/2025 in message <vregut$uthp$1@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote:
On 19/03/2025 12:45, Jeff Layman wrote:
There's an interesting report in the BBC news pages today at
<https:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rkvxlkpx2o>. Looks like it's
another "Post Office" case to avoid paying compensation for as long
as possible.
To prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he had not committed the
crimes sounds a very high bar.
I guess there was no other suspect in the running either.
How do you prove a negative like that to any standard?
On 19/03/2025 14:10, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 19/03/2025 in message <vregut$uthp$1@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote:
On 19/03/2025 12:45, Jeff Layman wrote:
There's an interesting report in the BBC news pages today at
<https:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rkvxlkpx2o>. Looks like it's
another "Post Office" case to avoid paying compensation for as long
as possible.
To prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he had not committed the
crimes sounds a very high bar.
I guess there was no other suspect in the running either.
How do you prove a negative like that to any standard?
I think the compensation scheme is designed to compensate those who were convicted as a result of a miscarriage of justice, in the sense that,
for instance, experts or police lied or concealed evidence.
Merely winning your appeal is not enough. And I think that makes good
sense, otherwise everyone who wins their appeal will expect compensation.
On 19/03/2025 14:10, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 19/03/2025 in message <vregut$uthp$1@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote:
On 19/03/2025 12:45, Jeff Layman wrote:
There's an interesting report in the BBC news pages today at
<https:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rkvxlkpx2o>. Looks like it's
another "Post Office" case to avoid paying compensation for as long
as possible.
To prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he had not committed the
crimes sounds a very high bar.
I guess there was no other suspect in the running either.
How do you prove a negative like that to any standard?
I think the compensation scheme is designed to compensate those who were convicted as a result of a miscarriage of justice, in the sense that,
for instance, experts or police lied or concealed evidence.
Merely winning your appeal is not enough. And I think that makes good
sense, otherwise everyone who wins their appeal will expect compensation.
So, if I win my appeal because new DNA analysis proves that the culprit
could not have been me, then maybe I'd get compensation. If I win
because the jury were not directed properly about the strength of the forensic science, then I wouldn't get compensation. As far as I know.
On 19/03/2025 14:10, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Fredxx wrote:
On 19/03/2025 12:45, Jeff Layman wrote:
There's an interesting report in the BBC news pages today at
<https:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rkvxlkpx2o>. Looks like it's
another "Post Office" case to avoid paying compensation for as long
as possible.
To prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he had not committed the
crimes sounds a very high bar.
I guess there was no other suspect in the running either.
How do you prove a negative like that to any standard?
I think the compensation scheme is designed to compensate those who were convicted as a result of a miscarriage of justice, in the sense that,
for instance, experts or police lied or concealed evidence.
Merely winning your appeal is not enough. And I think that makes good
sense, otherwise everyone who wins their appeal will expect compensation.
So, if I win my appeal because new DNA analysis proves that the culprit
could not have been me, then maybe I'd get compensation. If I win
because the jury were not directed properly about the strength of the forensic science, then I wouldn't get compensation. As far as I know.
On 19 Mar 2025 at 14:46:47 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 19/03/2025 14:10, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 19/03/2025 in message <vregut$uthp$1@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote:I think the compensation scheme is designed to compensate those who
On 19/03/2025 12:45, Jeff Layman wrote:
There's an interesting report in the BBC news pages today at
<https:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rkvxlkpx2o>. Looks like it's >>>>> another "Post Office" case to avoid paying compensation for as long
as possible.
To prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he had not committed the
crimes sounds a very high bar.
I guess there was no other suspect in the running either.
How do you prove a negative like that to any standard?
were convicted as a result of a miscarriage of justice, in the sense
that, for instance, experts or police lied or concealed evidence.
Merely winning your appeal is not enough. And I think that makes good
sense, otherwise everyone who wins their appeal will expect
compensation.
So, if I win my appeal because new DNA analysis proves that the culprit
could not have been me, then maybe I'd get compensation. If I win
because the jury were not directed properly about the strength of the
forensic science, then I wouldn't get compensation. As far as I know.
The compensation is usually for a long period in prison before being exonerated. I don't think anyone is suggesting compensation for winning
an appeal per se.
On 19/03/2025 02:46 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 19/03/2025 14:10, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Fredxx wrote:
On 19/03/2025 12:45, Jeff Layman wrote:
There's an interesting report in the BBC news pages today at
<https:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rkvxlkpx2o>. Looks like it's >>>>> another "Post Office" case to avoid paying compensation for as long
as possible.
To prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he had not committed the
crimes sounds a very high bar.
I guess there was no other suspect in the running either.
How do you prove a negative like that to any standard?
I think the compensation scheme is designed to compensate those who
were convicted as a result of a miscarriage of justice, in the sense
that, for instance, experts or police lied or concealed evidence.
Merely winning your appeal is not enough. And I think that makes good
sense, otherwise everyone who wins their appeal will expect
compensation.
So, if I win my appeal because new DNA analysis proves that the culprit
could not have been me, then maybe I'd get compensation. If I win
because the jury were not directed properly about the strength of the
forensic science, then I wouldn't get compensation. As far as I know.
It'd be at least interesting to know whether the gentleman in the
current controversy went "No comment" in police interviews.
On 2025-03-19, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/03/2025 14:10, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 19/03/2025 in message <vregut$uthp$1@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote:
On 19/03/2025 12:45, Jeff Layman wrote:
There's an interesting report in the BBC news pages today at
<https:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rkvxlkpx2o>. Looks like it's >>>>> another "Post Office" case to avoid paying compensation for as long
as possible.
To prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he had not committed the
crimes sounds a very high bar.
I guess there was no other suspect in the running either.
How do you prove a negative like that to any standard?
I think the compensation scheme is designed to compensate those who were
convicted as a result of a miscarriage of justice, in the sense that,
for instance, experts or police lied or concealed evidence.
Merely winning your appeal is not enough. And I think that makes good
sense, otherwise everyone who wins their appeal will expect compensation.
In what way does that "make good sense"?
On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 15:44:30 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Mar 2025 at 14:46:47 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 19/03/2025 14:10, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 19/03/2025 in message <vregut$uthp$1@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote:I think the compensation scheme is designed to compensate those who
On 19/03/2025 12:45, Jeff Layman wrote:
There's an interesting report in the BBC news pages today at
<https:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rkvxlkpx2o>. Looks like it's >>>>>> another "Post Office" case to avoid paying compensation for as long >>>>>> as possible.
To prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he had not committed the
crimes sounds a very high bar.
I guess there was no other suspect in the running either.
How do you prove a negative like that to any standard?
were convicted as a result of a miscarriage of justice, in the sense
that, for instance, experts or police lied or concealed evidence.
Merely winning your appeal is not enough. And I think that makes good
sense, otherwise everyone who wins their appeal will expect
compensation.
So, if I win my appeal because new DNA analysis proves that the culprit
could not have been me, then maybe I'd get compensation. If I win
because the jury were not directed properly about the strength of the
forensic science, then I wouldn't get compensation. As far as I know.
The compensation is usually for a long period in prison before being
exonerated. I don't think anyone is suggesting compensation for winning
an appeal per se.
Yes, but when people get locked up for years before their case is
heard ...
On 19/03/2025 15:16, Jon Ribbens wrote:
[quoted text muted]
It's public money at stake. We now know that Mr Buckle wasn't guilt of
the crimes with which he was charged.
On 19/03/2025 15:16, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-19, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/03/2025 14:10, Jeff Gaines wrote:In what way does that "make good sense"?
On 19/03/2025 in message <vregut$uthp$1@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote:
On 19/03/2025 12:45, Jeff Layman wrote:
There's an interesting report in the BBC news pages today at
<https:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rkvxlkpx2o>. Looks like it's >>>>>> another "Post Office" case to avoid paying compensation for as long >>>>>> as possible.
To prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he had not committed the
crimes sounds a very high bar.
I guess there was no other suspect in the running either.
How do you prove a negative like that to any standard?
I think the compensation scheme is designed to compensate those who were >>> convicted as a result of a miscarriage of justice, in the sense that,
for instance, experts or police lied or concealed evidence.
Merely winning your appeal is not enough. And I think that makes good
sense, otherwise everyone who wins their appeal will expect compensation. >>
It's public money at stake. We now know that Mr Buckle wasn't guilt of
the crimes with which he was charged. Some guilty people, especially in
rape or sexual assault cases, manage to persuade a jury that the case
isn't proved beyond reasonable doubt. Especially when the events date
from decades ago. In many rape cases the defendant is acquitted. If compensation was too easily available it would be a deterrent against prosecuting wrongdoers. See eg the BBC documentary "Rape On Trial" https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0028vp0
In the case under discussion I don't think any transcript of the court decisions is available in the public domain. Mr Buckle goes to prison
after being convicted of sexual offences. The 12 charges against him
included allegations of indecent assault, indecency with a child, and attempted rape, all of which were said to have occurred between March
31, 1993, and April 1, 1996. The victim was between 8 and 10 years old.
The Court of Appeal rules that his conviction is unsafe but that the
case is strong enough to justify a re-trial. At the re-trial he is found
not guilty. So the case against him didn't depend only on inaccurate scientific evidence. I think the complainant deserved his/her day in
court.
The law relating to compensation is here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/12/section/175
quote
For the purposes of subsection (1), there has been a miscarriage of
justice in relation to a person convicted of a criminal offence in
England and Wales or, in a case where subsection (6H) applies, Northern Ireland, if and only if the new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that the person did not commit the offence (and
references in the rest of this Part to a miscarriage of justice are to
be construed accordingly).”
unquote
So when the Court of Appeal set aside his original conviction but
ordered a re-trial, clearly it was not on the basis that "the person did
not commit the offence", only that the conviction was flawed for some
reason and had to go back to court.
The fact that he spent a huge amount in legal fees isn't really
relevant. No doubt Rolf Harris also spent a huge amount in legal fees.
On 19 Mar 2025 at 16:10:53 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
But being locked up for years before the case is heard is never a
punishment. It is a result of an assessed risk of running away or
committing further crimes. Perhaps we should have the American system of borrowing money for bail bonds, but allowing civilian vigilantes to
shoot you, and get paid for doing so, if you don't turn up.
. Perhaps we should have the American system of borrowing money for bail
bonds, but allowing civilian vigilantes to shoot you, and get paid for doing so, if you don't turn up.
On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 15:48:59 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 19/03/2025 02:46 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 19/03/2025 14:10, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Fredxx wrote:
On 19/03/2025 12:45, Jeff Layman wrote:
There's an interesting report in the BBC news pages today at
<https:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rkvxlkpx2o>. Looks like it's >>>>>> another "Post Office" case to avoid paying compensation for as long >>>>>> as possible.
To prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he had not committed the
crimes sounds a very high bar.
I guess there was no other suspect in the running either.
How do you prove a negative like that to any standard?
I think the compensation scheme is designed to compensate those who
were convicted as a result of a miscarriage of justice, in the sense
that, for instance, experts or police lied or concealed evidence.
Merely winning your appeal is not enough. And I think that makes good
sense, otherwise everyone who wins their appeal will expect
compensation.
So, if I win my appeal because new DNA analysis proves that the culprit
could not have been me, then maybe I'd get compensation. If I win
because the jury were not directed properly about the strength of the
forensic science, then I wouldn't get compensation. As far as I know.
It'd be at least interesting to know whether the gentleman in the
current controversy went "No comment" in police interviews.
You mean they exercised their right to remain silent. It seems a bit off
that to punish someone for exercising that right, you remove their right
to freedom. I guess your view is they are lucky they didn't lose their
right to life then ?
On 19 Mar 2025 at 16:10:53 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 15:44:30 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Mar 2025 at 14:46:47 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 19/03/2025 14:10, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 19/03/2025 in message <vregut$uthp$1@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote: >>>>>I think the compensation scheme is designed to compensate those who
On 19/03/2025 12:45, Jeff Layman wrote:
There's an interesting report in the BBC news pages today at
<https:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rkvxlkpx2o>. Looks like it's >>>>>>> another "Post Office" case to avoid paying compensation for as long >>>>>>> as possible.
To prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he had not committed the >>>>>> crimes sounds a very high bar.
I guess there was no other suspect in the running either.
How do you prove a negative like that to any standard?
were convicted as a result of a miscarriage of justice, in the sense
that, for instance, experts or police lied or concealed evidence.
Merely winning your appeal is not enough. And I think that makes good
sense, otherwise everyone who wins their appeal will expect
compensation.
So, if I win my appeal because new DNA analysis proves that the culprit >>>> could not have been me, then maybe I'd get compensation. If I win
because the jury were not directed properly about the strength of the
forensic science, then I wouldn't get compensation. As far as I know.
The compensation is usually for a long period in prison before being
exonerated. I don't think anyone is suggesting compensation for winning
an appeal per se.
Yes, but when people get locked up for years before their case is
heard ...
But being locked up for years before the case is heard is never a punishment. It is a result of an assessed risk of running away or committing further crimes. Perhaps we should have the American system of borrowing money for bail
bonds, but allowing civilian vigilantes to shoot you, and get paid for doing so, if you don't turn up.
On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 17:03:11 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Mar 2025 at 16:10:53 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
But being locked up for years before the case is heard is never a
punishment. It is a result of an assessed risk of running away or
committing further crimes. Perhaps we should have the American system of
borrowing money for bail bonds, but allowing civilian vigilantes to
shoot you, and get paid for doing so, if you don't turn up.
Or we go the other way and require a speedy trial in all cases. At the
moment there is nothing in UK law to prevent someone being arrested aged
18 and never tried until their death at the age of 80.
Samuel Johnson famously said that when a man has a week to live it tends
to focus the mind. I see no reason why the state - with the relatively infinite resources it has compared to the defendant - should not be
similarly focussed.
There should be no more than *months* between arrest and trial. If
there's no trial after (say) 6 months then case dismissed and the state
can damn well learn to do better next time.
On 2025-03-19, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/03/2025 15:16, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-19, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/03/2025 14:10, Jeff Gaines wrote:In what way does that "make good sense"?
On 19/03/2025 in message <vregut$uthp$1@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote: >>>>>> On 19/03/2025 12:45, Jeff Layman wrote:
There's an interesting report in the BBC news pages today at
<https:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rkvxlkpx2o>. Looks like it's >>>>>>> another "Post Office" case to avoid paying compensation for as long >>>>>>> as possible.
To prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he had not committed the >>>>>> crimes sounds a very high bar.
I guess there was no other suspect in the running either.
How do you prove a negative like that to any standard?
I think the compensation scheme is designed to compensate those who were >>>> convicted as a result of a miscarriage of justice, in the sense that,
for instance, experts or police lied or concealed evidence.
Merely winning your appeal is not enough. And I think that makes good
sense, otherwise everyone who wins their appeal will expect compensation. >>>
It's public money at stake. We now know that Mr Buckle wasn't guilt of
the crimes with which he was charged. Some guilty people, especially in
rape or sexual assault cases, manage to persuade a jury that the case
isn't proved beyond reasonable doubt. Especially when the events date
from decades ago. In many rape cases the defendant is acquitted. If
compensation was too easily available it would be a deterrent against
prosecuting wrongdoers. See eg the BBC documentary "Rape On Trial"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0028vp0
In the case under discussion I don't think any transcript of the court
decisions is available in the public domain. Mr Buckle goes to prison
after being convicted of sexual offences. The 12 charges against him
included allegations of indecent assault, indecency with a child, and
attempted rape, all of which were said to have occurred between March
31, 1993, and April 1, 1996. The victim was between 8 and 10 years old.
The Court of Appeal rules that his conviction is unsafe but that the
case is strong enough to justify a re-trial. At the re-trial he is found
not guilty. So the case against him didn't depend only on inaccurate
scientific evidence. I think the complainant deserved his/her day in
court.
The law relating to compensation is here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/12/section/175
quote
For the purposes of subsection (1), there has been a miscarriage of
justice in relation to a person convicted of a criminal offence in
England and Wales or, in a case where subsection (6H) applies, Northern
Ireland, if and only if the new or newly discovered fact shows beyond
reasonable doubt that the person did not commit the offence (and
references in the rest of this Part to a miscarriage of justice are to
be construed accordingly).”
unquote
So when the Court of Appeal set aside his original conviction but
ordered a re-trial, clearly it was not on the basis that "the person did
not commit the offence", only that the conviction was flawed for some
reason and had to go back to court.
The fact that he spent a huge amount in legal fees isn't really
relevant. No doubt Rolf Harris also spent a huge amount in legal fees.
I'm surprised you didn't know this, but getting your legal fees paid
isn't called "compensation", it's called "costs".
If the state prosecutes you and you are found not guilty, your legal
costs should be covered by the state, but you shouldn't in general get
any compensation (unless of course you can show malicious prosecution
or seomthing).
If the state incarcerates you and you are later acquitted on appeal,
you should get compensation for the wrongful incarceration, and you
should not have to "prove your innocence". The state failed in its
duty, and the costs of this must obviously be borne by the state -
inflicting those costs on random individuals is an obvious and
entirely unnecessary injustice.
On 19/03/2025 17:34, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-19, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/03/2025 15:16, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-19, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/03/2025 14:10, Jeff Gaines wrote:In what way does that "make good sense"?
On 19/03/2025 in message <vregut$uthp$1@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote: >>>>>>> On 19/03/2025 12:45, Jeff Layman wrote:
There's an interesting report in the BBC news pages today at
<https:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rkvxlkpx2o>. Looks like it's >>>>>>>> another "Post Office" case to avoid paying compensation for as long >>>>>>>> as possible.
To prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he had not committed the >>>>>>> crimes sounds a very high bar.
I guess there was no other suspect in the running either.
How do you prove a negative like that to any standard?
I think the compensation scheme is designed to compensate those who were >>>>> convicted as a result of a miscarriage of justice, in the sense that, >>>>> for instance, experts or police lied or concealed evidence.
Merely winning your appeal is not enough. And I think that makes good >>>>> sense, otherwise everyone who wins their appeal will expect compensation. >>>>
It's public money at stake. We now know that Mr Buckle wasn't guilt of
the crimes with which he was charged. Some guilty people, especially in >>> rape or sexual assault cases, manage to persuade a jury that the case
isn't proved beyond reasonable doubt. Especially when the events date
from decades ago. In many rape cases the defendant is acquitted. If
compensation was too easily available it would be a deterrent against
prosecuting wrongdoers. See eg the BBC documentary "Rape On Trial"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0028vp0
In the case under discussion I don't think any transcript of the court
decisions is available in the public domain. Mr Buckle goes to prison
after being convicted of sexual offences. The 12 charges against him
included allegations of indecent assault, indecency with a child, and
attempted rape, all of which were said to have occurred between March
31, 1993, and April 1, 1996. The victim was between 8 and 10 years old.
The Court of Appeal rules that his conviction is unsafe but that the
case is strong enough to justify a re-trial. At the re-trial he is found >>> not guilty. So the case against him didn't depend only on inaccurate
scientific evidence. I think the complainant deserved his/her day in
court.
The law relating to compensation is here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/12/section/175
quote
For the purposes of subsection (1), there has been a miscarriage of
justice in relation to a person convicted of a criminal offence in
England and Wales or, in a case where subsection (6H) applies, Northern
Ireland, if and only if the new or newly discovered fact shows beyond
reasonable doubt that the person did not commit the offence (and
references in the rest of this Part to a miscarriage of justice are to
be construed accordingly).”
unquote
So when the Court of Appeal set aside his original conviction but
ordered a re-trial, clearly it was not on the basis that "the person did >>> not commit the offence", only that the conviction was flawed for some
reason and had to go back to court.
The fact that he spent a huge amount in legal fees isn't really
relevant. No doubt Rolf Harris also spent a huge amount in legal fees.
I'm surprised you didn't know this, but getting your legal fees paid
isn't called "compensation", it's called "costs".
Why would you think I didn't understand the difference between damages
and costs? The word "compensation" can actually cover both elements.
If the state prosecutes you and you are found not guilty, your legal
costs should be covered by the state, but you shouldn't in general get
any compensation (unless of course you can show malicious prosecution
or seomthing).
When you say "should be covered by the state" that is a moral argument
rather than a legal one.
In criminal cases it is deplorable that legal aid no longer gives a
defendant a lawyer at public expense. Many defendants do pay
considerable sums from their own pocket.
If the state incarcerates you and you are later acquitted on appeal,
you should get compensation for the wrongful incarceration, and you
should not have to "prove your innocence". The state failed in its
duty, and the costs of this must obviously be borne by the state -
inflicting those costs on random individuals is an obvious and
entirely unnecessary injustice.
I understand why many people feel that way, but such payments would be
an intolerable burden on the public purse.
Perhaps the point is, did "the state fail in its duty"? We expect the
state to prosecute wrongdoers even in cases where it is one person's
word against another's. The jury makes its decision. If the trial
judge has failed to sum up correctly, the defendant might win in the
Court of Appeal. Does that mean that the judge has failed in his duty?
His duty being to ensure that the defendant can have no grounds on
which to appeal?
One major scandal is the time it takes to bring any case to trial.
That's because of a shortage of resources in the criminal justice
system. No victim/complainant should have to wait three or four years
for the defendant to be tried by a court. But it happens regularly.
On 19/03/2025 04:12 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 15:48:59 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 19/03/2025 02:46 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 19/03/2025 14:10, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Fredxx wrote:
On 19/03/2025 12:45, Jeff Layman wrote:
There's an interesting report in the BBC news pages today at
<https:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rkvxlkpx2o>. Looks like it's >>>>>>> another "Post Office" case to avoid paying compensation for as long >>>>>>> as possible.
To prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he had not committed the >>>>>> crimes sounds a very high bar.
I guess there was no other suspect in the running either.
How do you prove a negative like that to any standard?
I think the compensation scheme is designed to compensate those who
were convicted as a result of a miscarriage of justice, in the sense
that, for instance, experts or police lied or concealed evidence.
Merely winning your appeal is not enough. And I think that makes good
sense, otherwise everyone who wins their appeal will expect
compensation.
So, if I win my appeal because new DNA analysis proves that the culprit >>>> could not have been me, then maybe I'd get compensation. If I win
because the jury were not directed properly about the strength of the
forensic science, then I wouldn't get compensation. As far as I know.
It'd be at least interesting to know whether the gentleman in the
current controversy went "No comment" in police interviews.
You mean they exercised their right to remain silent. It seems a bit off
that to punish someone for exercising that right, you remove their right
to freedom. I guess your view is they are lucky they didn't lose their
right to life then ?
Going "No comment", contrary to what some claim about "right to
silence", is often - perhaps usually - heard and read as "Guilty, but
I'm saying nowt and perhaps you won't be able to prove it".
The current Judge's caution warns suspected persons of that potential
effect.
Pretending that this is not the case achieves nothing.
There is no benefit to society or to victims of crime in letting guilty persons escape conviction.
On 2025-03-20, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/03/2025 17:34, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-19, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/03/2025 15:16, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-19, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/03/2025 14:10, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 19/03/2025 in message <vregut$uthp$1@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote: >>>>>>>> On 19/03/2025 12:45, Jeff Layman wrote:
There's an interesting report in the BBC news pages today at >>>>>>>>> <https:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rkvxlkpx2o>. Looks like it's >>>>>>>>> another "Post Office" case to avoid paying compensation for as long >>>>>>>>> as possible.
To prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he had not committed the >>>>>>>> crimes sounds a very high bar.
I guess there was no other suspect in the running either.
How do you prove a negative like that to any standard?
I think the compensation scheme is designed to compensate those who were >>>>>> convicted as a result of a miscarriage of justice, in the sense that, >>>>>> for instance, experts or police lied or concealed evidence.
Merely winning your appeal is not enough. And I think that makes good >>>>>> sense, otherwise everyone who wins their appeal will expect compensation.
In what way does that "make good sense"?
It's public money at stake. We now know that Mr Buckle wasn't guilt of >>>> the crimes with which he was charged. Some guilty people, especially in >>>> rape or sexual assault cases, manage to persuade a jury that the case
isn't proved beyond reasonable doubt. Especially when the events date
from decades ago. In many rape cases the defendant is acquitted. If
compensation was too easily available it would be a deterrent against
prosecuting wrongdoers. See eg the BBC documentary "Rape On Trial"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0028vp0
In the case under discussion I don't think any transcript of the court >>>> decisions is available in the public domain. Mr Buckle goes to prison
after being convicted of sexual offences. The 12 charges against him
included allegations of indecent assault, indecency with a child, and
attempted rape, all of which were said to have occurred between March
31, 1993, and April 1, 1996. The victim was between 8 and 10 years old. >>>>
The Court of Appeal rules that his conviction is unsafe but that the
case is strong enough to justify a re-trial. At the re-trial he is found >>>> not guilty. So the case against him didn't depend only on inaccurate
scientific evidence. I think the complainant deserved his/her day in
court.
The law relating to compensation is here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/12/section/175
quote
For the purposes of subsection (1), there has been a miscarriage of
justice in relation to a person convicted of a criminal offence in
England and Wales or, in a case where subsection (6H) applies, Northern >>>> Ireland, if and only if the new or newly discovered fact shows beyond
reasonable doubt that the person did not commit the offence (and
references in the rest of this Part to a miscarriage of justice are to >>>> be construed accordingly).”
unquote
So when the Court of Appeal set aside his original conviction but
ordered a re-trial, clearly it was not on the basis that "the person did >>>> not commit the offence", only that the conviction was flawed for some
reason and had to go back to court.
The fact that he spent a huge amount in legal fees isn't really
relevant. No doubt Rolf Harris also spent a huge amount in legal fees.
I'm surprised you didn't know this, but getting your legal fees paid
isn't called "compensation", it's called "costs".
Why would you think I didn't understand the difference between damages
and costs? The word "compensation" can actually cover both elements.
Because you're bringing up the legal fees when we're talking about compensation for wrongful imprisonment.
If the state prosecutes you and you are found not guilty, your legal
costs should be covered by the state, but you shouldn't in general get
any compensation (unless of course you can show malicious prosecution
or seomthing).
When you say "should be covered by the state" that is a moral argument
rather than a legal one.
In criminal cases it is deplorable that legal aid no longer gives a
defendant a lawyer at public expense. Many defendants do pay
considerable sums from their own pocket.
Indeed.
If the state incarcerates you and you are later acquitted on appeal,
you should get compensation for the wrongful incarceration, and you
should not have to "prove your innocence". The state failed in its
duty, and the costs of this must obviously be borne by the state -
inflicting those costs on random individuals is an obvious and
entirely unnecessary injustice.
I understand why many people feel that way, but such payments would be
an intolerable burden on the public purse.
Why? Is it really so incredibly common that people are wrongfully
convicted and imprisoned for lengthy periods of time, such that
the total bill for such a policy would be even noticeable to the
state? If so there is a very serious problem here that is not even
being talked about.
On 20/03/2025 02:24, JNugent wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Only in popular myth, and on the telly.
No comment is the most sensible response when you are interrogated by a police officer. The police will be trying to build a case against you,
piece by piece. They are not seeking the truth, so much as seeking a reasonably watertight case that can be presented in court.
[quoted text muted]
"But it may harm your defence if you don't mention when questioned
something which you later rely on in court".
That is intended to appy to the sort of scenario in which you have an excellent defence but choose to keep it a secret. Maybe an alibi. If
such evidence is disclosed very late, there will be a suspicion that it
might be fraudulent.
Why? Is it really so incredibly common that people are wrongfully
convicted and imprisoned for lengthy periods of time, such that the
total bill for such a policy would be even noticeable to the state? If
so there is a very serious problem here that is not even being talked
about.
I don't think anyone would have wanted the likes of Brady and Hindley to
go free because of a delay in starting the trial.
On 2025-03-20, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I understand why many people feel that way, but such payments would be
an intolerable burden on the public purse.
Why? Is it really so incredibly common that people are wrongfully
convicted and imprisoned for lengthy periods of time, such that
the total bill for such a policy would be even noticeable to the
state? If so there is a very serious problem here that is not even
being talked about.
Convicted by a jury but subsequently succeeding on an appeal, perhaps on what the
public would call "a technicality"?
Going "No comment", contrary to what some claim about "right to silence", is often -
perhaps usually - heard and read as "Guilty, but I'm saying nowt and perhaps you won't
be able to prove it".
Only in popular myth, and on the telly.
No comment is the most sensible response when you are interrogated by a police officer.
The police will be trying to build a case against you, piece by piece. They are not
seeking the truth, so much as seeking a reasonably watertight case that can be
presented in court.
Yes, he should be reimbursed the legal costs without question.
And then compensated for the time in prison.
Why? Is it really so incredibly common that people are wrongfully
convicted and imprisoned for lengthy periods of time, such that
the total bill for such a policy would be even noticeable to the
state? If so there is a very serious problem here that is not even
being talked about.
You'd have to be more specific about what you define as "wrongfully
convicted".
Convicted by a jury but subsequently succeeding on an appeal, perhaps on
what the public would call "a technicality"?
Yes, that happens a lot. Sometimes the CA orders a re-trial, sometimes
not. Maybe it's those technicalities that result in huge delays in case
preparation and in the length of trials.
It happens a lot that convictions are overturned on technicalities?
After the defendant has been imprisoned for a lengthy period of time?
Do you have any examples? I don't recall any high-profile ones off-hand.
On 20/03/2025 08:24, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-20, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/03/2025 17:34, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-19, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/03/2025 15:16, Jon Ribbens wrote:I'm surprised you didn't know this, but getting your legal fees paid
On 2025-03-19, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/03/2025 14:10, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 19/03/2025 in message <vregut$uthp$1@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 19/03/2025 12:45, Jeff Layman wrote:
There's an interesting report in the BBC news pages today at >>>>>>>>>> <https:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rkvxlkpx2o>. Looks like it's >>>>>>>>>> another "Post Office" case to avoid paying compensation for as long >>>>>>>>>> as possible.
To prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he had not committed the >>>>>>>>> crimes sounds a very high bar.
I guess there was no other suspect in the running either.
How do you prove a negative like that to any standard?
I think the compensation scheme is designed to compensate those who were
convicted as a result of a miscarriage of justice, in the sense that, >>>>>>> for instance, experts or police lied or concealed evidence.
Merely winning your appeal is not enough. And I think that makes good >>>>>>> sense, otherwise everyone who wins their appeal will expect compensation.
In what way does that "make good sense"?
It's public money at stake. We now know that Mr Buckle wasn't guilt of >>>>> the crimes with which he was charged. Some guilty people, especially in >>>>> rape or sexual assault cases, manage to persuade a jury that the case >>>>> isn't proved beyond reasonable doubt. Especially when the events date >>>>> from decades ago. In many rape cases the defendant is acquitted. If
compensation was too easily available it would be a deterrent against >>>>> prosecuting wrongdoers. See eg the BBC documentary "Rape On Trial"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0028vp0
In the case under discussion I don't think any transcript of the court >>>>> decisions is available in the public domain. Mr Buckle goes to prison >>>>> after being convicted of sexual offences. The 12 charges against him >>>>> included allegations of indecent assault, indecency with a child, and >>>>> attempted rape, all of which were said to have occurred between March >>>>> 31, 1993, and April 1, 1996. The victim was between 8 and 10 years old. >>>>>
The Court of Appeal rules that his conviction is unsafe but that the >>>>> case is strong enough to justify a re-trial. At the re-trial he is found >>>>> not guilty. So the case against him didn't depend only on inaccurate >>>>> scientific evidence. I think the complainant deserved his/her day in >>>>> court.
The law relating to compensation is here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/12/section/175
quote
For the purposes of subsection (1), there has been a miscarriage of
justice in relation to a person convicted of a criminal offence in
England and Wales or, in a case where subsection (6H) applies, Northern >>>>> Ireland, if and only if the new or newly discovered fact shows beyond >>>>> reasonable doubt that the person did not commit the offence (and
references in the rest of this Part to a miscarriage of justice are to >>>>> be construed accordingly).”
unquote
So when the Court of Appeal set aside his original conviction but
ordered a re-trial, clearly it was not on the basis that "the person did >>>>> not commit the offence", only that the conviction was flawed for some >>>>> reason and had to go back to court.
The fact that he spent a huge amount in legal fees isn't really
relevant. No doubt Rolf Harris also spent a huge amount in legal fees. >>>>
isn't called "compensation", it's called "costs".
Why would you think I didn't understand the difference between damages
and costs? The word "compensation" can actually cover both elements.
Because you're bringing up the legal fees when we're talking about
compensation for wrongful imprisonment.
I was referring to the BBC report where it says
"During the struggle to clear his name, Brian used savings and family
loans to pay for his legal fees - totalling UKP 500,000. This is equal
to the total amount of compensation that Brian was able to apply for".
So it's the legal fees that result in him being massively out of pocket
and arguably the injustice is that he doesn't get reimbursed for those
fees. Regardless of whether he can satisfy the rule that requires him to
show beyond reasonable doubt that he did NOT commit the offence.
Why? Is it really so incredibly common that people are wrongfully
convicted and imprisoned for lengthy periods of time, such that
the total bill for such a policy would be even noticeable to the
state? If so there is a very serious problem here that is not even
being talked about.
You'd have to be more specific about what you define as "wrongfully convicted".
Convicted by a jury but subsequently succeeding on an appeal, perhaps on
what the public would call "a technicality"?
Yes, that happens a lot. Sometimes the CA orders a re-trial, sometimes
not. Maybe it's those technicalities that result in huge delays in case preparation and in the length of trials.
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:m422lhFmk1bU4@mid.individual.net...
Convicted by a jury but subsequently succeeding on an appeal, perhaps on what the
public would call "a technicality"?
So who's fault was the "technicality" ? If a person is subsequently freed
as result of a "technicality", then that must surely be the fault of the prosecution, the police or CPS in originally bringing the case.
So why should they not be held to account ?
The fact that they're grossly underfunded, short staffed, that in fact the whole
of the criminal justice system is in fact on its knees doesn't in itself justify denying
those "wrongly convicted", even on technicalities compensation.
Quite simply you can't have a "Criminal Justice System" supposedly
intended to dispense "Justice" if this is only possible by chipping away
at the bits, prisons, legal aid, compensation, that the voting public
simply don't seem to care about.
bb.
On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 08:24:55 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Why? Is it really so incredibly common that people are wrongfully
convicted and imprisoned for lengthy periods of time, such that the
total bill for such a policy would be even noticeable to the state? If
so there is a very serious problem here that is not even being talked
about.
I think the state would like to know that getting it wrong costs nothing. They removes any need for improvement.
Have I mentioned my suggestion to improve UK productivity by scrapping
health and safety legislation ?
So a rapist who faces a re-trial (a hypothetical case, not the one under discussion) and is acquitted, should be paid lots of dosh, when the
woman he has raped is left to cry her eyes out at the injustice of it
all.
On 2025-03-20, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
"During the struggle to clear his name, Brian used savings and family
loans to pay for his legal fees - totalling UKP 500,000. This is equal
to the total amount of compensation that Brian was able to apply for".
So it's the legal fees that result in him being massively out of pocket
and arguably the injustice is that he doesn't get reimbursed for those
fees. Regardless of whether he can satisfy the rule that requires him to
show beyond reasonable doubt that he did NOT commit the offence.
Yes, he should be reimbursed the legal costs without question.
And then compensated for the time in prison.
Why? Is it really so incredibly common that people are wrongfully
convicted and imprisoned for lengthy periods of time, such that
the total bill for such a policy would be even noticeable to the
state? If so there is a very serious problem here that is not even
being talked about.
You'd have to be more specific about what you define as "wrongfully
convicted".
Convicted by a jury but subsequently succeeding on an appeal, perhaps on
what the public would call "a technicality"?
Yes, that happens a lot. Sometimes the CA orders a re-trial, sometimes
not. Maybe it's those technicalities that result in huge delays in case
preparation and in the length of trials.
It happens a lot that convictions are overturned on technicalities?
After the defendant has been imprisoned for a lengthy period of time?
Do you have any examples? I don't recall any high-profile ones off-hand.
I understand why many people feel that way, but such payments would be
an intolerable burden on the public purse. Perhaps the point is, did
"the state fail in its duty"? We expect the state to prosecute
wrongdoers even in cases where it is one person's word against
another's.
The jury makes its decision. If the trial judge has failed to
sum up correctly, the defendant might win in the Court of Appeal. Does
that mean that the judge has failed in his duty?
On 20/03/2025 02:24, JNugent wrote:
Going "No comment", contrary to what some claim about "right to
silence", is often - perhaps usually - heard and read as "Guilty, but
I'm saying nowt and perhaps you won't be able to prove it".
Only in popular myth, and on the telly.
No comment is the most sensible response when you are interrogated by a police officer. The police will be trying to build a case against you,
piece by piece. They are not seeking the truth, so much as seeking a reasonably watertight case that can be presented in court.
On 20/03/2025 08:09, The Todal wrote:
I understand why many people feel that way, but such payments would be
an intolerable burden on the public purse. Perhaps the point is, did
"the state fail in its duty"? We expect the state to prosecute
wrongdoers even in cases where it is one person's word against another's.
No we don't, because if that's the only consideration, such cases can
never be decided fairly. We actually prosecute those where the CPS considers there is a reasonable prospect of securing a conviction at
trial based on the evidence, which means, according to their own
guidelines 'a better chance than not'. There has to be more than one person's word against another's.
The jury makes its decision. If the trial judge has failed to sum up
correctly, the defendant might win in the Court of Appeal. Does that
mean that the judge has failed in his duty?
Yes, of course. It's his prime responsibility to ensure a fair trial and
a reliable verdict.
On 20/03/2025 09:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-20, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
"During the struggle to clear his name, Brian used savings and family
loans to pay for his legal fees - totalling UKP 500,000. This is equal
to the total amount of compensation that Brian was able to apply for".
So it's the legal fees that result in him being massively out of pocket
and arguably the injustice is that he doesn't get reimbursed for those
fees. Regardless of whether he can satisfy the rule that requires him to >>> show beyond reasonable doubt that he did NOT commit the offence.
Yes, he should be reimbursed the legal costs without question.
I don't think he should be reimbursed regardless of the amount of costs
he has incurred. It surely has to be a reasonable amount. £500,000
does sound a tad excessive.
And then compensated for the time in prison.
Why? Is it really so incredibly common that people are wrongfully
convicted and imprisoned for lengthy periods of time, such that
the total bill for such a policy would be even noticeable to the
state? If so there is a very serious problem here that is not even
being talked about.
You'd have to be more specific about what you define as "wrongfully
convicted".
Convicted by a jury but subsequently succeeding on an appeal, perhaps on >>> what the public would call "a technicality"?
Yes, that happens a lot. Sometimes the CA orders a re-trial, sometimes
not. Maybe it's those technicalities that result in huge delays in case
preparation and in the length of trials.
It happens a lot that convictions are overturned on technicalities?
After the defendant has been imprisoned for a lengthy period of time?
Do you have any examples? I don't recall any high-profile ones off-hand.
'Technicalities' are there to be abided by in the interests of fair
trials, which I'd hope we all support. It would be fairer to call them failures in the case that had to be proved.
Was it just a 'technicality' that resulted in Auriol Grey being
imprisoned for over a year?
On 20/03/2025 08:30, The Todal wrote:
On 20/03/2025 02:24, JNugent wrote:
Going "No comment", contrary to what some claim about "right to
silence", is often - perhaps usually - heard and read as "Guilty, but
I'm saying nowt and perhaps you won't be able to prove it".
Only in popular myth, and on the telly.
No comment is the most sensible response when you are interrogated by a
police officer. The police will be trying to build a case against you,
piece by piece. They are not seeking the truth, so much as seeking a
reasonably watertight case that can be presented in court.
Going 'no comment', especially after initially being cooperative, is a very substantial indicator of guilt, as Mr Nugent accurately pointed out. Why should anyone not want to give their side of the story if they are in fact innocent? At the very least it will be such an indicator to the police.
On 20/03/2025 09:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:
It happens a lot that convictions are overturned on technicalities?
After the defendant has been imprisoned for a lengthy period of time?
Do you have any examples? I don't recall any high-profile ones off-hand.
I could find some on the BAILII website. Such cases are so commonplace
that they aren't deemed newsworthy. Thereby giving the public the
impression that they must be rare.
On 20/03/2025 08:30, The Todal wrote:
On 20/03/2025 02:24, JNugent wrote:
Going "No comment", contrary to what some claim about "right to
silence", is often - perhaps usually - heard and read as "Guilty, but
I'm saying nowt and perhaps you won't be able to prove it".
Only in popular myth, and on the telly.
No comment is the most sensible response when you are interrogated by
a police officer. The police will be trying to build a case against
you, piece by piece. They are not seeking the truth, so much as
seeking a reasonably watertight case that can be presented in court.
Going 'no comment', especially after initially being cooperative, is a
very substantial indicator of guilt, as Mr Nugent accurately pointed
out. Why should anyone not want to give their side of the story if they
are in fact innocent? At the very least it will be such an indicator to
the police.
On 20/03/2025 09:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-20, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
"During the struggle to clear his name, Brian used savings and family
loans to pay for his legal fees - totalling UKP 500,000. This is equal
to the total amount of compensation that Brian was able to apply for".
So it's the legal fees that result in him being massively out of pocket
and arguably the injustice is that he doesn't get reimbursed for those
fees. Regardless of whether he can satisfy the rule that requires him to >>> show beyond reasonable doubt that he did NOT commit the offence.
Yes, he should be reimbursed the legal costs without question.
I don't think he should be reimbursed regardless of the amount of costs
he has incurred. It surely has to be a reasonable amount. £500,000
does sound a tad excessive.
On 20/03/2025 10:52, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/03/2025 08:30, The Todal wrote:
On 20/03/2025 02:24, JNugent wrote:
Going "No comment", contrary to what some claim about "right to silence", is often -
perhaps usually - heard and read as "Guilty, but I'm saying nowt and perhaps you
won't be able to prove it".
Only in popular myth, and on the telly.
No comment is the most sensible response when you are interrogated by a police
officer. The police will be trying to build a case against you, piece by piece. They
are not seeking the truth, so much as seeking a reasonably watertight case that can
be presented in court.
Going 'no comment', especially after initially being cooperative, is a very >> substantial indicator of guilt, as Mr Nugent accurately pointed out. Why should anyone
not want to give their side of the story if they are in fact innocent? At the very
least it will be such an indicator to the police.
You plainly have no experience of the criminal justice system.
To explain very simply, when the police question a suspect it is to get evidence that
will help them to prosecute that suspect. So everything he says can be used against
him, whether he is guilty or innocent. If the police have enough to charge him, let
them charge him. Don't add to their ammunition.
Perhaps an exception to that would be if you, the suspect, know the identity of the
true perpetrator and want to help the police to catch him. Even then, there might be
risks. The true perpetrator might say "it wasn't me. Norman has always hated me and
persecuted me. The reason why he claims to know so much about this crime is that he was
the actual perpetrator".
On 20/03/2025 10:04, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m422lhFmk1bU4@mid.individual.net...
Convicted by a jury but subsequently succeeding on an appeal, perhaps on what the
public would call "a technicality"?
So who's fault was the "technicality" ? If a person is subsequently freed >> as result of a "technicality", then that must surely be the fault of the
prosecution, the police or CPS in originally bringing the case.
So why should they not be held to account ?
What do you mean, "held to account"?
Be more specific. Are you perhaps saying that judges who make mistakes should be fined or imprisoned or sacked?
So a rapist who faces a re-trial (a hypothetical case, not the one under discussion)
and is acquitted, should be paid lots of dosh,
when the woman he has raped
is left to cry her eyes out at the injustice of it all. Yes, pay the rapist money that
would otherwise perhaps go to disabled people or elderly people who need care visits.
It's the only way we'll improve the nation.
It does not seem excessive to me given the time involved.
On 20 Mar 2025 at 10:46:15 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 20/03/2025 09:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-20, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
"During the struggle to clear his name, Brian used savings and family
loans to pay for his legal fees - totalling UKP 500,000. This is equal >>>> to the total amount of compensation that Brian was able to apply for". >>>>
So it's the legal fees that result in him being massively out of pocket >>>> and arguably the injustice is that he doesn't get reimbursed for those >>>> fees. Regardless of whether he can satisfy the rule that requires him to >>>> show beyond reasonable doubt that he did NOT commit the offence.
Yes, he should be reimbursed the legal costs without question.
I don't think he should be reimbursed regardless of the amount of costs
he has incurred. It surely has to be a reasonable amount. £500,000
does sound a tad excessive.
And then compensated for the time in prison.
Why? Is it really so incredibly common that people are wrongfully
convicted and imprisoned for lengthy periods of time, such that
the total bill for such a policy would be even noticeable to the
state? If so there is a very serious problem here that is not even
being talked about.
You'd have to be more specific about what you define as "wrongfully
convicted".
Convicted by a jury but subsequently succeeding on an appeal, perhaps on >>>> what the public would call "a technicality"?
Yes, that happens a lot. Sometimes the CA orders a re-trial, sometimes >>>> not. Maybe it's those technicalities that result in huge delays in case >>>> preparation and in the length of trials.
It happens a lot that convictions are overturned on technicalities?
After the defendant has been imprisoned for a lengthy period of time?
Do you have any examples? I don't recall any high-profile ones off-hand.
'Technicalities' are there to be abided by in the interests of fair
trials, which I'd hope we all support. It would be fairer to call them
failures in the case that had to be proved.
Was it just a 'technicality' that resulted in Auriol Grey being
imprisoned for over a year?
Very much so: had the case been presented properly it is quite probably that she would still have been found guilty.
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 20/03/2025 09:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-20, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
"During the struggle to clear his name, Brian used savings and family
loans to pay for his legal fees - totalling UKP 500,000. This is equal >>>> to the total amount of compensation that Brian was able to apply for". >>>>
So it's the legal fees that result in him being massively out of pocket >>>> and arguably the injustice is that he doesn't get reimbursed for those >>>> fees. Regardless of whether he can satisfy the rule that requires him to >>>> show beyond reasonable doubt that he did NOT commit the offence.
Yes, he should be reimbursed the legal costs without question.
I don't think he should be reimbursed regardless of the amount of costs
he has incurred. It surely has to be a reasonable amount. £500,000
does sound a tad excessive.
I he has been trying to challenge his conviction for 5 years and spending money on legal services then that is £100,000 per year. How much time of
how many solicitors and/or barristers does that buy?
It does not seem excessive to me given the time involved.
On 20/03/2025 10:38, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/03/2025 08:09, The Todal wrote:
I understand why many people feel that way, but such payments would
be an intolerable burden on the public purse. Perhaps the point is,
did "the state fail in its duty"? We expect the state to prosecute
wrongdoers even in cases where it is one person's word against
another's.
No we don't, because if that's the only consideration, such cases can
never be decided fairly. We actually prosecute those where the CPS
considers there is a reasonable prospect of securing a conviction at
trial based on the evidence, which means, according to their own
guidelines 'a better chance than not'. There has to be more than one
person's word against another's.
Wrong. You should know better than that.
The jury makes its decision. If the trial judge has failed to sum up
correctly, the defendant might win in the Court of Appeal. Does that
mean that the judge has failed in his duty?
Yes, of course. It's his prime responsibility to ensure a fair trial
and a reliable verdict.
You have snipped the point I was making. I said "His duty being to
ensure that the defendant can have no grounds on which to appeal?"
So applying your logic, if the judge makes a mistake that enables a
guilty man to go free, you'd want to see that defendant compensated with damages.
On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 08:30:58 +0000, The Todal wrote:
On 20/03/2025 02:24, JNugent wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Only in popular myth, and on the telly.
No comment is the most sensible response when you are interrogated by a
police officer. The police will be trying to build a case against you,
piece by piece. They are not seeking the truth, so much as seeking a
reasonably watertight case that can be presented in court.
[quoted text muted]
"But it may harm your defence if you don't mention when questioned
something which you later rely on in court".
That is intended to appy to the sort of scenario in which you have an
excellent defence but choose to keep it a secret. Maybe an alibi. If
such evidence is disclosed very late, there will be a suspicion that it
might be fraudulent.
I am of an age to remember when that was bought in under PACE. There was quite a stir at the time.
The rationale (as was) was to address a few very high profile cases where
the defendants had cooked up clearly bogus stories in between arrest and trial (another argument for a speedy trial - it prevents defendants
writing War and Peace) which the prosecution were not allowed to
challenge as "that is a fairy story that you could have told when
arrested".
Now they can.
AIUI with all of that being said, if a defendant after arrest chooses to
ask for a lawyer rather than talk to the police, the court cannot draw inferences from that alone. So "no comment until I have spoken to legal counsel" can't be used as proof of deeper waters.
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:m42222Fmk1bU3@mid.individual.net...
Not even " I happened to be eating dinner with your Chief Constable in a hotel 500 miles from the scene of the crime. at the time the crime was committed, officer.
Going "No comment", contrary to what some claim about "right to
silence", is often - perhaps usually - heard and read as "Guilty, but
I'm saying nowt and perhaps you won't be able to prove it".
Only in popular myth, and on the telly.
No comment is the most sensible response when you are interrogated by a
police officer.
The police will be trying to build a case against you, piece by piece.
They are not seeking the truth, so much as seeking a reasonably
watertight case that can be presented in court.
On 20/03/2025 10:52, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/03/2025 08:30, The Todal wrote:
On 20/03/2025 02:24, JNugent wrote:
Going "No comment", contrary to what some claim about "right to
silence", is often - perhaps usually - heard and read as "Guilty, but
I'm saying nowt and perhaps you won't be able to prove it".
Only in popular myth, and on the telly.
No comment is the most sensible response when you are interrogated by
a police officer. The police will be trying to build a case against
you, piece by piece. They are not seeking the truth, so much as
seeking a reasonably watertight case that can be presented in court.
Going 'no comment', especially after initially being cooperative, is a
very substantial indicator of guilt, as Mr Nugent accurately pointed
out. Why should anyone not want to give their side of the story if
they are in fact innocent? At the very least it will be such an
indicator to the police.
It might involve revealing something which is immoral, or
embarrassing,
but not illegal (or fattening). So, better to 'no comment' from the
start ?
On 20/03/2025 10:19, The Todal wrote:
So a rapist who faces a re-trial (a hypothetical case, not the one
under discussion) and is acquitted, should be paid lots of dosh, when
the woman he has raped is left to cry her eyes out at the injustice of
it all.
So, he's both acquitted, ie found not guilty, and guilty?
That's a strange justice system.
On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 09:18:45 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m42222Fmk1bU3@mid.individual.net...
Not even " I happened to be eating dinner with your Chief Constable in a
Going "No comment", contrary to what some claim about "right to
silence", is often - perhaps usually - heard and read as "Guilty, but
I'm saying nowt and perhaps you won't be able to prove it".
Only in popular myth, and on the telly.
No comment is the most sensible response when you are interrogated by a
police officer.
The police will be trying to build a case against you, piece by piece.
They are not seeking the truth, so much as seeking a reasonably
watertight case that can be presented in court.
hotel 500 miles from the scene of the crime. at the time the crime was
committed, officer.
If a defendant waited until trial to reveal that having remained silent previously, there is a good chance they would not be awarded costs and possibly face charges of wasting police time.
On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 09:18:45 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m42222Fmk1bU3@mid.individual.net...
Not even " I happened to be eating dinner with your Chief Constable in a
Going "No comment", contrary to what some claim about "right to
silence", is often - perhaps usually - heard and read as "Guilty, but
I'm saying nowt and perhaps you won't be able to prove it".
Only in popular myth, and on the telly.
No comment is the most sensible response when you are interrogated by a
police officer.
The police will be trying to build a case against you, piece by piece.
They are not seeking the truth, so much as seeking a reasonably
watertight case that can be presented in court.
hotel 500 miles from the scene of the crime. at the time the crime was
committed, officer.
If a defendant waited until trial to reveal that having remained silent previously, there is a good chance they would not be awarded costs
and possibly face charges of wasting police time.
On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 10:31:25 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/03/2025 10:19, The Todal wrote:
So a rapist who faces a re-trial (a hypothetical case, not the one
under discussion) and is acquitted, should be paid lots of dosh, when
the woman he has raped is left to cry her eyes out at the injustice of
it all.
So, he's both acquitted, ie found not guilty, and guilty?
That's a strange justice system.
Basically the English system has created a "Not Proven" verdict.
On 20/03/2025 02:24, JNugent wrote:
On 19/03/2025 04:12 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 15:48:59 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 19/03/2025 02:46 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 19/03/2025 14:10, Jeff Gaines wrote:It'd be at least interesting to know whether the gentleman in the
Fredxx wrote:
On 19/03/2025 12:45, Jeff Layman wrote:
There's an interesting report in the BBC news pages today at
<https:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rkvxlkpx2o>. Looks like >>>>>>>> it's
another "Post Office" case to avoid paying compensation for as long >>>>>>>> as possible.
To prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he had not committed the >>>>>>> crimes sounds a very high bar.
I guess there was no other suspect in the running either.
How do you prove a negative like that to any standard?
I think the compensation scheme is designed to compensate those who
were convicted as a result of a miscarriage of justice, in the sense >>>>> that, for instance, experts or police lied or concealed evidence.
Merely winning your appeal is not enough. And I think that makes good >>>>> sense, otherwise everyone who wins their appeal will expect
compensation.
So, if I win my appeal because new DNA analysis proves that the
culprit
could not have been me, then maybe I'd get compensation. If I win
because the jury were not directed properly about the strength of the >>>>> forensic science, then I wouldn't get compensation. As far as I know. >>>>
current controversy went "No comment" in police interviews.
You mean they exercised their right to remain silent. It seems a bit off >>> that to punish someone for exercising that right, you remove their right >>> to freedom. I guess your view is they are lucky they didn't lose their
right to life then ?
Going "No comment", contrary to what some claim about "right to
silence", is often - perhaps usually - heard and read as "Guilty, but
I'm saying nowt and perhaps you won't be able to prove it".
Only in popular myth, and on the telly.
No comment is the most sensible response when you are interrogated by a police officer. The police will be trying to build a case against you,
piece by piece. They are not seeking the truth, so much as seeking a reasonably watertight case that can be presented in court.
The current Judge's caution warns suspected persons of that potential
effect.
"But it may harm your defence if you don't mention when questioned
something which you later rely on in court".
That is intended to appy to the sort of scenario in which you have an excellent defence but choose to keep it a secret. Maybe an alibi. If
such evidence is disclosed very late, there will be a suspicion that it
might be fraudulent.
Pretending that this is not the case achieves nothing.
There is no benefit to society or to victims of crime in letting
guilty persons escape conviction.
Quite so.
Unfortunately there is a benefit to society in putting the wrong person behind bars. It gives the victims closure and it saves money and court
time. There is huge resentment among victims and among the public at
large when it is argued that Lucy Letby or Abdelbaset al-Megrahi might
be innocent.
In the case under discussion I don't think any transcript of the court decisions is available in the public domain. Mr Buckle goes to prison
after being convicted of sexual offences. The 12 charges against him
included allegations of indecent assault, indecency with a child, and attempted rape, all of which were said to have occurred between March
31, 1993, and April 1, 1996. The victim was between 8 and 10 years old.
The Court of Appeal rules that his conviction is unsafe but that the
case is strong enough to justify a re-trial. At the re-trial he is found
not guilty. So the case against him didn't depend only on inaccurate scientific evidence. I think the complainant deserved his/her day in
court.
The law relating to compensation is here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/12/section/175
quote
For the purposes of subsection (1), there has been a miscarriage of
justice in relation to a person convicted of a criminal offence in
England and Wales or, in a case where subsection (6H) applies, Northern Ireland, if and only if the new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that the person did not commit the offence (and
references in the rest of this Part to a miscarriage of justice are to
be construed accordingly).”
unquote
So when the Court of Appeal set aside his original conviction but
ordered a re-trial, clearly it was not on the basis that "the person did
not commit the offence", only that the conviction was flawed for some
reason and had to go back to court.
The fact that he spent a huge amount in legal fees isn't really
relevant. No doubt Rolf Harris also spent a huge amount in legal fees.
On 20/03/2025 12:32, Owen Rees wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 20/03/2025 09:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-20, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
"During the struggle to clear his name, Brian used savings and family >>>>> loans to pay for his legal fees - totalling UKP 500,000. This is equal >>>>> to the total amount of compensation that Brian was able to apply for". >>>>>
So it's the legal fees that result in him being massively out of pocket >>>>> and arguably the injustice is that he doesn't get reimbursed for those >>>>> fees. Regardless of whether he can satisfy the rule that requires him to >>>>> show beyond reasonable doubt that he did NOT commit the offence.
Yes, he should be reimbursed the legal costs without question.
I don't think he should be reimbursed regardless of the amount of costs
he has incurred. It surely has to be a reasonable amount. 500,000
does sound a tad excessive.
I he has been trying to challenge his conviction for 5 years and spending
money on legal services then that is 100,000 per year. How much time of
how many solicitors and/or barristers does that buy?
It does not seem excessive to me given the time involved.
I'm not arguing that he didn't spend that much or that the amount could
not be justified by a team of top criminal lawyers (if that's who were >employed) working the hours they did, but it's a matter of whether such >expenditure was necessary and unavoidable.
On 20/03/2025 20:19, Owen Rees wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 13:15:37 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote in <m42inpFpd9eU2@mid.individual.net>:
On 20/03/2025 12:32, Owen Rees wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 20/03/2025 09:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-20, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
"During the struggle to clear his name, Brian used savings and family >>>>>>> loans to pay for his legal fees - totalling UKP 500,000. This is equal >>>>>>> to the total amount of compensation that Brian was able to apply for". >>>>>>>
So it's the legal fees that result in him being massively out of pocket >>>>>>> and arguably the injustice is that he doesn't get reimbursed for those >>>>>>> fees. Regardless of whether he can satisfy the rule that requires him to
show beyond reasonable doubt that he did NOT commit the offence.
Yes, he should be reimbursed the legal costs without question.
I don't think he should be reimbursed regardless of the amount of costs >>>>> he has incurred. It surely has to be a reasonable amount. £500,000 >>>>> does sound a tad excessive.
I he has been trying to challenge his conviction for 5 years and spending >>>> money on legal services then that is £100,000 per year. How much time of >>>> how many solicitors and/or barristers does that buy?
It does not seem excessive to me given the time involved.
I'm not arguing that he didn't spend that much or that the amount could
not be justified by a team of top criminal lawyers (if that's who were
employed) working the hours they did, but it's a matter of whether such
expenditure was necessary and unavoidable.
According to information I found, you can expect to pay at least £200
per hour for a junior barrister or at least £350 per hour for a
barrister with more than 10 years experience. The £100,000 per year
would buy at most 36 eight hour days for the experienced barrister or 63
for the junior. An experienced barrister working on the case for 3 days
per month uses up your budget. That does not account for any other
expenditure.
If your legal team were being paid minimum wage, you could perhaps
afford as many as 5 people for the money.
Another example where it sounds a lot in a headline but if you do the
sums it is very little considering how much work will have been
involved.
If you disagree with the input values I used, provide your own and do
the sums and see where that leaves you.
The question I asked was whether the expenditure was necessary and unavoidable, ie whether it was proportionate. And just to remind you,
it was £500,000.
On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 13:15:37 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote in <m42inpFpd9eU2@mid.individual.net>:
On 20/03/2025 12:32, Owen Rees wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 20/03/2025 09:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-20, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
"During the struggle to clear his name, Brian used savings and family >>>>>> loans to pay for his legal fees - totalling UKP 500,000. This is equal >>>>>> to the total amount of compensation that Brian was able to apply for". >>>>>>
So it's the legal fees that result in him being massively out of pocket >>>>>> and arguably the injustice is that he doesn't get reimbursed for those >>>>>> fees. Regardless of whether he can satisfy the rule that requires him to >>>>>> show beyond reasonable doubt that he did NOT commit the offence.
Yes, he should be reimbursed the legal costs without question.
I don't think he should be reimbursed regardless of the amount of costs >>>> he has incurred. It surely has to be a reasonable amount. £500,000
does sound a tad excessive.
I he has been trying to challenge his conviction for 5 years and spending >>> money on legal services then that is £100,000 per year. How much time of >>> how many solicitors and/or barristers does that buy?
It does not seem excessive to me given the time involved.
I'm not arguing that he didn't spend that much or that the amount could
not be justified by a team of top criminal lawyers (if that's who were
employed) working the hours they did, but it's a matter of whether such
expenditure was necessary and unavoidable.
According to information I found, you can expect to pay at least £200
per hour for a junior barrister or at least £350 per hour for a
barrister with more than 10 years experience. The £100,000 per year
would buy at most 36 eight hour days for the experienced barrister or 63
for the junior. An experienced barrister working on the case for 3 days
per month uses up your budget. That does not account for any other expenditure.
If your legal team were being paid minimum wage, you could perhaps
afford as many as 5 people for the money.
Another example where it sounds a lot in a headline but if you do the
sums it is very little considering how much work will have been
involved.
If you disagree with the input values I used, provide your own and do
the sums and see where that leaves you.
On 20/03/2025 15:00, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 10:31:25 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/03/2025 10:19, The Todal wrote:
So a rapist who faces a re-trial (a hypothetical case, not the one
under discussion) and is acquitted, should be paid lots of dosh, when
the woman he has raped is left to cry her eyes out at the injustice of >>>> it all.
So, he's both acquitted, ie found not guilty, and guilty?
That's a strange justice system.
Basically the English system has created a "Not Proven" verdict.
Only under Todal Law, where it seems he's the one who decides guilt regardless of the verdict of the court.
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:m42burFofbrU2@mid.individual.net...
On 20/03/2025 10:52, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/03/2025 08:30, The Todal wrote:
On 20/03/2025 02:24, JNugent wrote:
Going "No comment", contrary to what some claim about "right to silence", is often -
perhaps usually - heard and read as "Guilty, but I'm saying nowt and perhaps you
won't be able to prove it".
Only in popular myth, and on the telly.
No comment is the most sensible response when you are interrogated by a police
officer. The police will be trying to build a case against you, piece by piece. They
are not seeking the truth, so much as seeking a reasonably watertight case that can
be presented in court.
Going 'no comment', especially after initially being cooperative, is a very >>> substantial indicator of guilt, as Mr Nugent accurately pointed out. Why should anyone
not want to give their side of the story if they are in fact innocent? At the very
least it will be such an indicator to the police.
You plainly have no experience of the criminal justice system.
To explain very simply, when the police question a suspect it is to get evidence that
will help them to prosecute that suspect. So everything he says can be used against
him, whether he is guilty or innocent. If the police have enough to charge him, let
them charge him. Don't add to their ammunition.
Perhaps an exception to that would be if you, the suspect, know the identity of the
true perpetrator and want to help the police to catch him. Even then, there might be
risks. The true perpetrator might say "it wasn't me. Norman has always hated me and
persecuted me. The reason why he claims to know so much about this crime is that he was
the actual perpetrator".
Er. aren't you rather arguing against yourself here ?
One the one hand you're advising people not to answer police questions
on arrest so at to avoid the ever-real possibility of their being "fitted up" ?
While on the othetr hand you appear to be arguing that innocent people so "fitted up", should be denied compensation.
On 20/03/2025 10:52, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/03/2025 08:30, The Todal wrote:
On 20/03/2025 02:24, JNugent wrote:
Going "No comment", contrary to what some claim about "right to
silence", is often - perhaps usually - heard and read as "Guilty,
but I'm saying nowt and perhaps you won't be able to prove it".
Only in popular myth, and on the telly.
No comment is the most sensible response when you are interrogated by
a police officer. The police will be trying to build a case against
you, piece by piece. They are not seeking the truth, so much as
seeking a reasonably watertight case that can be presented in court.
Going 'no comment', especially after initially being cooperative, is a
very substantial indicator of guilt, as Mr Nugent accurately pointed
out. Why should anyone not want to give their side of the story if
they are in fact innocent? At the very least it will be such an
indicator to the police.
It might involve revealing something which is immoral, or
embarrassing, but not illegal (or fattening). So, better to 'no comment'
from the start ?
On 20/03/2025 11:25, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 20/03/2025 10:52, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/03/2025 08:30, The Todal wrote:
On 20/03/2025 02:24, JNugent wrote:Going 'no comment', especially after initially being cooperative, is
Going "No comment", contrary to what some claim about "right to
silence", is often - perhaps usually - heard and read as "Guilty,
but I'm saying nowt and perhaps you won't be able to prove it".
Only in popular myth, and on the telly.
No comment is the most sensible response when you are interrogated
by a police officer. The police will be trying to build a case
against you, piece by piece. They are not seeking the truth, so much
as seeking a reasonably watertight case that can be presented in court. >>>
a very substantial indicator of guilt, as Mr Nugent accurately
pointed out. Why should anyone not want to give their side of the
story if they are in fact innocent? At the very least it will be
such an indicator to the police.
It might involve revealing something which is immoral, or
embarrassing, but not illegal (or fattening). So, better to 'no
comment' from the start ?
Or it might be: "we've heard that three years ago you had an argument
with the victim, you shouted at him, you nearly came to blows, you used
the words "I won't ever forget this". Do you agree that happened"
"Yes, that did happen but I think we got along fine with each other
after that".
"Sarge, that's the final piece of our case! Well done! Let's now go to
CPS for their decision".
On 20/03/2025 15:22, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/03/2025 15:00, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 10:31:25 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/03/2025 10:19, The Todal wrote:
So a rapist who faces a re-trial (a hypothetical case, not the one
under discussion) and is acquitted, should be paid lots of dosh, when >>>>> the woman he has raped is left to cry her eyes out at the injustice of >>>>> it all.
So, he's both acquitted, ie found not guilty, and guilty?
That's a strange justice system.
Basically the English system has created a "Not Proven" verdict.
Only under Todal Law, where it seems he's the one who decides guilt
regardless of the verdict of the court.
My occasional references to Norman Law evidently rankle!
I think you are still having difficulty understanding the system by
which people do or do not qualify for compensation after their
conviction is overturned by the Court of Appeal. I've shown you the legislation and it is clear what the requirements are, but somehow in
your mind you have got the idea that I, of all people, make the
decisions about compensation.
I don't think Auriol Grey would qualify. Just to be clear - that isn't
my personal decision, I'm not involved in making such decisions, it's
just my understanding of the relevant legislation. I'm happy to join
with you in a rousing chorus of "It's So Unfair!".
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 20/03/2025 20:19, Owen Rees wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 13:15:37 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote in <m42inpFpd9eU2@mid.individual.net>:
On 20/03/2025 12:32, Owen Rees wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 20/03/2025 09:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-20, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
"During the struggle to clear his name, Brian used savings and family >>>>>>>> loans to pay for his legal fees - totalling UKP 500,000. This is equal >>>>>>>> to the total amount of compensation that Brian was able to apply for". >>>>>>>>Yes, he should be reimbursed the legal costs without question.
So it's the legal fees that result in him being massively out of pocket
and arguably the injustice is that he doesn't get reimbursed for those >>>>>>>> fees. Regardless of whether he can satisfy the rule that requires him to
show beyond reasonable doubt that he did NOT commit the offence. >>>>>>>
I don't think he should be reimbursed regardless of the amount of costs >>>>>> he has incurred. It surely has to be a reasonable amount. £500,000 >>>>>> does sound a tad excessive.
I he has been trying to challenge his conviction for 5 years and spending >>>>> money on legal services then that is £100,000 per year. How much time of >>>>> how many solicitors and/or barristers does that buy?
It does not seem excessive to me given the time involved.
I'm not arguing that he didn't spend that much or that the amount could >>>> not be justified by a team of top criminal lawyers (if that's who were >>>> employed) working the hours they did, but it's a matter of whether such >>>> expenditure was necessary and unavoidable.
According to information I found, you can expect to pay at least £200
per hour for a junior barrister or at least £350 per hour for a
barrister with more than 10 years experience. The £100,000 per year
would buy at most 36 eight hour days for the experienced barrister or 63 >>> for the junior. An experienced barrister working on the case for 3 days
per month uses up your budget. That does not account for any other
expenditure.
If your legal team were being paid minimum wage, you could perhaps
afford as many as 5 people for the money.
Another example where it sounds a lot in a headline but if you do the
sums it is very little considering how much work will have been
involved.
If you disagree with the input values I used, provide your own and do
the sums and see where that leaves you.
The question I asked was whether the expenditure was necessary and
unavoidable, ie whether it was proportionate. And just to remind you,
it was £500,000.
What does it take to overturn a conviction?
In this case it is reported to have taken five years legal work.
What is your suggestion for doing it more quickly or cheaply.
On 19/03/2025 15:16, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-19, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/03/2025 14:10, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 19/03/2025 in message <vregut$uthp$1@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote:
On 19/03/2025 12:45, Jeff Layman wrote:
There's an interesting report in the BBC news pages today at
<https:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rkvxlkpx2o>. Looks like it's >>>>>> another "Post Office" case to avoid paying compensation for as long >>>>>> as possible.
To prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he had not committed the
crimes sounds a very high bar.
I guess there was no other suspect in the running either.
How do you prove a negative like that to any standard?
I think the compensation scheme is designed to compensate those who were >>> convicted as a result of a miscarriage of justice, in the sense that,
for instance, experts or police lied or concealed evidence.
Merely winning your appeal is not enough. And I think that makes good
sense, otherwise everyone who wins their appeal will expect
compensation.
In what way does that "make good sense"?
It's public money at stake. We now know that Mr Buckle wasn't guilt of
the crimes with which he was charged. Some guilty people, especially in rape or sexual assault cases, manage to persuade a jury that the case
isn't proved beyond reasonable doubt. Especially when the events date
from decades ago. In many rape cases the defendant is acquitted. If compensation was too easily available it would be a deterrent against prosecuting wrongdoers. See eg the BBC documentary "Rape On Trial" https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0028vp0
In the case under discussion I don't think any transcript of the court decisions is available in the public domain. Mr Buckle goes to prison
after being convicted of sexual offences. The 12 charges against him
included allegations of indecent assault, indecency with a child, and attempted rape, all of which were said to have occurred between March
31, 1993, and April 1, 1996. The victim was between 8 and 10 years old.
The Court of Appeal rules that his conviction is unsafe but that the
case is strong enough to justify a re-trial. At the re-trial he is found
not guilty. So the case against him didn't depend only on inaccurate scientific evidence. I think the complainant deserved his/her day in
court.
The law relating to compensation is here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/12/section/175
quote
For the purposes of subsection (1), there has been a miscarriage of
justice in relation to a person convicted of a criminal offence in
England and Wales or, in a case where subsection (6H) applies, Northern Ireland, if and only if the new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that the person did not commit the offence (and
references in the rest of this Part to a miscarriage of justice are to
be construed accordingly).”
unquote
So when the Court of Appeal set aside his original conviction but
ordered a re-trial, clearly it was not on the basis that "the person did
not commit the offence", only that the conviction was flawed for some
reason and had to go back to court.
The fact that he spent a huge amount in legal fees isn't really
relevant. No doubt Rolf Harris also spent a huge amount in legal fees.
On 20/03/2025 09:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:
It happens a lot that convictions are overturned on technicalities?
After the defendant has been imprisoned for a lengthy period of time?
Do you have any examples? I don't recall any high-profile ones off-hand.
Auriol Grey!!
On 2025-03-20, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 20/03/2025 08:24, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-20, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/03/2025 17:34, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-19, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/03/2025 15:16, Jon Ribbens wrote:I'm surprised you didn't know this, but getting your legal fees paid >>>>> isn't called "compensation", it's called "costs".
On 2025-03-19, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/03/2025 14:10, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 19/03/2025 in message <vregut$uthp$1@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 19/03/2025 12:45, Jeff Layman wrote:
There's an interesting report in the BBC news pages today at >>>>>>>>>>> <https:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rkvxlkpx2o>. Looks like it's
another "Post Office" case to avoid paying compensation for as long >>>>>>>>>>> as possible.
To prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he had not committed the >>>>>>>>>> crimes sounds a very high bar.
I guess there was no other suspect in the running either.
How do you prove a negative like that to any standard?
I think the compensation scheme is designed to compensate those who were
convicted as a result of a miscarriage of justice, in the sense that, >>>>>>>> for instance, experts or police lied or concealed evidence.
Merely winning your appeal is not enough. And I think that makes good >>>>>>>> sense, otherwise everyone who wins their appeal will expect compensation.
In what way does that "make good sense"?
It's public money at stake. We now know that Mr Buckle wasn't guilt of >>>>>> the crimes with which he was charged. Some guilty people, especially in >>>>>> rape or sexual assault cases, manage to persuade a jury that the case >>>>>> isn't proved beyond reasonable doubt. Especially when the events date >>>>>> from decades ago. In many rape cases the defendant is acquitted. If >>>>>> compensation was too easily available it would be a deterrent against >>>>>> prosecuting wrongdoers. See eg the BBC documentary "Rape On Trial" >>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0028vp0
In the case under discussion I don't think any transcript of the court >>>>>> decisions is available in the public domain. Mr Buckle goes to prison >>>>>> after being convicted of sexual offences. The 12 charges against him >>>>>> included allegations of indecent assault, indecency with a child, and >>>>>> attempted rape, all of which were said to have occurred between March >>>>>> 31, 1993, and April 1, 1996. The victim was between 8 and 10 years old. >>>>>>
The Court of Appeal rules that his conviction is unsafe but that the >>>>>> case is strong enough to justify a re-trial. At the re-trial he is found >>>>>> not guilty. So the case against him didn't depend only on inaccurate >>>>>> scientific evidence. I think the complainant deserved his/her day in >>>>>> court.
The law relating to compensation is here:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/12/section/175
quote
For the purposes of subsection (1), there has been a miscarriage of >>>>>> justice in relation to a person convicted of a criminal offence in >>>>>> England and Wales or, in a case where subsection (6H) applies, Northern >>>>>> Ireland, if and only if the new or newly discovered fact shows beyond >>>>>> reasonable doubt that the person did not commit the offence (and
references in the rest of this Part to a miscarriage of justice are to >>>>>> be construed accordingly).”
unquote
So when the Court of Appeal set aside his original conviction but
ordered a re-trial, clearly it was not on the basis that "the person did >>>>>> not commit the offence", only that the conviction was flawed for some >>>>>> reason and had to go back to court.
The fact that he spent a huge amount in legal fees isn't really
relevant. No doubt Rolf Harris also spent a huge amount in legal fees. >>>>>
Why would you think I didn't understand the difference between damages >>>> and costs? The word "compensation" can actually cover both elements.
Because you're bringing up the legal fees when we're talking about
compensation for wrongful imprisonment.
I was referring to the BBC report where it says
"During the struggle to clear his name, Brian used savings and family
loans to pay for his legal fees - totalling UKP 500,000. This is equal
to the total amount of compensation that Brian was able to apply for".
So it's the legal fees that result in him being massively out of pocket
and arguably the injustice is that he doesn't get reimbursed for those
fees. Regardless of whether he can satisfy the rule that requires him to
show beyond reasonable doubt that he did NOT commit the offence.
Yes, he should be reimbursed the legal costs without question.
And then compensated for the time in prison.
Why? Is it really so incredibly common that people are wrongfully
convicted and imprisoned for lengthy periods of time, such that
the total bill for such a policy would be even noticeable to the
state? If so there is a very serious problem here that is not even
being talked about.
You'd have to be more specific about what you define as "wrongfully
convicted".
Convicted by a jury but subsequently succeeding on an appeal, perhaps on
what the public would call "a technicality"?
Yes, that happens a lot. Sometimes the CA orders a re-trial, sometimes
not. Maybe it's those technicalities that result in huge delays in case
preparation and in the length of trials.
It happens a lot that convictions are overturned on technicalities?
After the defendant has been imprisoned for a lengthy period of time?
Do you have any examples? I don't recall any high-profile ones off-hand.
On 20/03/2025 11:43, billy bookcase wrote:
One the one hand you're advising people not to answer police questions
on arrest so at to avoid the ever-real possibility of their being
"fitted up" ?
I didn't use the phrase "fitted up". You did. I'm not arguing that the
police try to frame people they know to be innocent.
On 2025-03-21, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
On 20/03/2025 09:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:
It happens a lot that convictions are overturned on technicalities?
After the defendant has been imprisoned for a lengthy period of time?
Do you have any examples? I don't recall any high-profile ones off-hand.
Auriol Grey!!
I'm not sure that's a "technicality" so much as an "almighty fuck-up",
which surely cannot be common. But yes she should get compensation for
her time in prison. (I don't think she deserves it, but that isn't the point.)
On 20/03/2025 08:30 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 20/03/2025 02:24, JNugent wrote:
On 19/03/2025 04:12 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 15:48:59 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 19/03/2025 02:46 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 19/03/2025 14:10, Jeff Gaines wrote:It'd be at least interesting to know whether the gentleman in the
Fredxx wrote:
On 19/03/2025 12:45, Jeff Layman wrote:
There's an interesting report in the BBC news pages today at >>>>>>>>> <https:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rkvxlkpx2o>. Looks like >>>>>>>>> it's
another "Post Office" case to avoid paying compensation for as long >>>>>>>>> as possible.
To prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he had not committed the >>>>>>>> crimes sounds a very high bar.
I guess there was no other suspect in the running either.
How do you prove a negative like that to any standard?
I think the compensation scheme is designed to compensate those who >>>>>> were convicted as a result of a miscarriage of justice, in the sense >>>>>> that, for instance, experts or police lied or concealed evidence.
Merely winning your appeal is not enough. And I think that makes good >>>>>> sense, otherwise everyone who wins their appeal will expect
compensation.
So, if I win my appeal because new DNA analysis proves that the
culprit
could not have been me, then maybe I'd get compensation. If I win
because the jury were not directed properly about the strength of the >>>>>> forensic science, then I wouldn't get compensation. As far as I know. >>>>>
current controversy went "No comment" in police interviews.
You mean they exercised their right to remain silent. It seems a bit off >>>> that to punish someone for exercising that right, you remove their right >>>> to freedom. I guess your view is they are lucky they didn't lose their >>>> right to life then ?
Going "No comment", contrary to what some claim about "right to
silence", is often - perhaps usually - heard and read as "Guilty, but
I'm saying nowt and perhaps you won't be able to prove it".
Only in popular myth, and on the telly.
No, no.
You are at least as aware as I am that many real-life police interviews, broadcast or
uploaded to video-sharing sites, have had interviewees replying No comment" to every
question. They are not mythical and obviously are skewed towards cases where the jury
verdict was (eventually) "Guilty".
Totally unconvinced.
No comment is the most sensible response when you are interrogated by a
police officer. The police will be trying to build a case against you,
piece by piece. They are not seeking the truth, so much as seeking a
reasonably watertight case that can be presented in court.
Another poster has already argued to the same effect as I am doing.
The current Judge's caution warns suspected persons of that potential
effect.
"But it may harm your defence if you don't mention when questioned
something which you later rely on in court".
That is intended to appy to the sort of scenario in which you have an
excellent defence but choose to keep it a secret. Maybe an alibi. If
such evidence is disclosed very late, there will be a suspicion that it
might be fraudulent.
It is intended to apply to every sort of case.
A relative was an officer of the Police Federation at Fed HQ (Proctor Street). I was
kept abreast of the issues for the federation at the time of the PACE Bill.
Pretending that this is not the case achieves nothing.
There is no benefit to society or to victims of crime in letting
guilty persons escape conviction.
Quite so.
Unfortunately there is a benefit to society in putting the wrong person
behind bars. It gives the victims closure and it saves money and court
time. There is huge resentment among victims and among the public at
large when it is argued that Lucy Letby or Abdelbaset al-Megrahi might
be innocent.
That - where and if it happens - is clearly an illusory benefit. To the extent that it
leaves the true culprit unpunished, it is a *disbenefit* to society.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnvtqdku.5a3.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-03-21, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
On 20/03/2025 09:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:
It happens a lot that convictions are overturned on technicalities?Auriol Grey!!
After the defendant has been imprisoned for a lengthy period of time?
Do you have any examples? I don't recall any high-profile ones off-hand. >>>
I'm not sure that's a "technicality" so much as an "almighty fuck-up",
which surely cannot be common. But yes she should get compensation for
her time in prison. (I don't think she deserves it, but that isn't the
point.)
She'd probaly also get a *free* stick, on the NHS, if she asked for one.
There's simply no justice any more, is there ?
On 2025-03-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvtqdku.5a3.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-03-21, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
On 20/03/2025 09:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:
It happens a lot that convictions are overturned on technicalities?Auriol Grey!!
After the defendant has been imprisoned for a lengthy period of time? >>>>> Do you have any examples? I don't recall any high-profile ones off-hand. >>>>
I'm not sure that's a "technicality" so much as an "almighty fuck-up",
which surely cannot be common. But yes she should get compensation for
her time in prison. (I don't think she deserves it, but that isn't the
point.)
She'd probaly also get a *free* stick, on the NHS, if she asked for one.
There's simply no justice any more, is there ?
That seems very mean of you, I think she definitely deserves a stick
if she wants one.
On 2025-03-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvtqdku.5a3.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-03-21, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
On 20/03/2025 09:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:
It happens a lot that convictions are overturned on technicalities?Auriol Grey!!
After the defendant has been imprisoned for a lengthy period of time? >>>>> Do you have any examples? I don't recall any high-profile ones off-hand. >>>>
I'm not sure that's a "technicality" so much as an "almighty fuck-up",
which surely cannot be common. But yes she should get compensation for
her time in prison. (I don't think she deserves it, but that isn't the
point.)
She'd probaly also get a *free* stick, on the NHS, if she asked for one.
There's simply no justice any more, is there ?
That seems very mean of you, I think she definitely deserves a stick
if she wants one.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:m42oguFqceoU1@mid.individual.net...
On 20/03/2025 08:30 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 20/03/2025 02:24, JNugent wrote:
On 19/03/2025 04:12 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 15:48:59 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 19/03/2025 02:46 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 19/03/2025 14:10, Jeff Gaines wrote:It'd be at least interesting to know whether the gentleman in the
Fredxx wrote:
On 19/03/2025 12:45, Jeff Layman wrote:
There's an interesting report in the BBC news pages today at >>>>>>>>>> <https:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rkvxlkpx2o>. Looks like >>>>>>>>>> it's
another "Post Office" case to avoid paying compensation for as long >>>>>>>>>> as possible.
To prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he had not committed the >>>>>>>>> crimes sounds a very high bar.
I guess there was no other suspect in the running either.
How do you prove a negative like that to any standard?
I think the compensation scheme is designed to compensate those who >>>>>>> were convicted as a result of a miscarriage of justice, in the sense >>>>>>> that, for instance, experts or police lied or concealed evidence. >>>>>>>
Merely winning your appeal is not enough. And I think that makes good >>>>>>> sense, otherwise everyone who wins their appeal will expect
compensation.
So, if I win my appeal because new DNA analysis proves that the
culprit
could not have been me, then maybe I'd get compensation. If I win >>>>>>> because the jury were not directed properly about the strength of the >>>>>>> forensic science, then I wouldn't get compensation. As far as I know. >>>>>>
current controversy went "No comment" in police interviews.
You mean they exercised their right to remain silent. It seems a bit off >>>>> that to punish someone for exercising that right, you remove their right >>>>> to freedom. I guess your view is they are lucky they didn't lose their >>>>> right to life then ?
Going "No comment", contrary to what some claim about "right to
silence", is often - perhaps usually - heard and read as "Guilty, but
I'm saying nowt and perhaps you won't be able to prove it".
Only in popular myth, and on the telly.
No, no.
You are at least as aware as I am that many real-life police interviews, broadcast or
uploaded to video-sharing sites, have had interviewees replying No comment" to every
question. They are not mythical and obviously are skewed towards cases where the jury
verdict was (eventually) "Guilty".
Totally unconvinced.
No comment is the most sensible response when you are interrogated by a
police officer. The police will be trying to build a case against you,
piece by piece. They are not seeking the truth, so much as seeking a
reasonably watertight case that can be presented in court.
Another poster has already argued to the same effect as I am doing.
The current Judge's caution warns suspected persons of that potential
effect.
"But it may harm your defence if you don't mention when questioned
something which you later rely on in court".
That is intended to appy to the sort of scenario in which you have an
excellent defence but choose to keep it a secret. Maybe an alibi. If
such evidence is disclosed very late, there will be a suspicion that it
might be fraudulent.
It is intended to apply to every sort of case.
A relative was an officer of the Police Federation at Fed HQ (Proctor Street). I was
kept abreast of the issues for the federation at the time of the PACE Bill. >>>
Pretending that this is not the case achieves nothing.
There is no benefit to society or to victims of crime in letting
guilty persons escape conviction.
Quite so.
Unfortunately there is a benefit to society in putting the wrong person
behind bars. It gives the victims closure and it saves money and court
time. There is huge resentment among victims and among the public at
large when it is argued that Lucy Letby or Abdelbaset al-Megrahi might
be innocent.
That - where and if it happens - is clearly an illusory benefit. To the extent that it
leaves the true culprit unpunished, it is a *disbenefit* to society.
How can it possibly be an illusory benefit ?
If relatives of the victim(s) believe the real culprit has been convicted and punished
then the desire for retribution will have been satisfied. If other potential criminals
are deterred by the fact that a culprit has been convicted and punished, then the
requirement for deterrence will have been served. The rest of the public, society
as a whole, except for the actual criminal etc., will believe that the real culprit
has been convicted and punished and so can maintain the "necessary illusion" that
the Criminal Justice System works exactly as planned.
Which happens to be directly contrary to the fact that its clearly impossible to
identify, arrest, try, convict and punish the real perpetrators of a sizeable
percentage of actual crimes, in the first place.
It's imagining otherwise which is the "disbelief".
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnvtqnkt.5a3.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-03-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvtqdku.5a3.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-03-21, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
On 20/03/2025 09:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:
It happens a lot that convictions are overturned on technicalities? >>>>>> After the defendant has been imprisoned for a lengthy period of time? >>>>>> Do you have any examples? I don't recall any high-profile ones
off-hand.
Auriol Grey!!
I'm not sure that's a "technicality" so much as an "almighty fuck-up", >>>> which surely cannot be common. But yes she should get compensation for >>>> her time in prison. (I don't think she deserves it, but that isn't the >>>> point.)
She'd probaly also get a *free* stick, on the NHS, if she asked for one. >>>
There's simply no justice any more, is there ?
That seems very mean of you, I think she definitely deserves a stick
if she wants one.
Are you sure ?
quote:
She walked with a limp and wore a lower leg brace. She had lost half her sight in each eye. The agreed facts at trial record that the consultant ophthalmologist who examined her, said that as a result of her brain operation, where part of the left hand side of her brain was removed,
she has a total loss of visual field to the right side of view; i.e.
each eye has a total loss of the right half of the visual field (which
is completely different from closing your right eye and assuming that
is what it looks like).
At the time of the incident, as now, the appellant lived in supported accommodation.
5.
When interviewed by the police, the appellant referred to her difficulties with mobility and eyesight but said that she did not consider that she had
a mental disability.
She said that the cyclist had been travelling towards her at speed and that she had flinched out with her left arm to protect herself and
avoid being hurt. She told the police that she was not sure what she
had said. After the CCTV with audio was played to her, she said she
could not explain why she had spoken in that way but maintained that
her actions were to protect herself.
unquote:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/20240508-R-v-Auriol-Gray.pdf
Its incredible the lies these half-blind cripples will come out with
at times, don't you think ?
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnvtr0ge.5a3.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-03-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvtqnkt.5a3.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-03-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvtqdku.5a3.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-03-21, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
On 20/03/2025 09:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:
It happens a lot that convictions are overturned on technicalities? >>>>>>>> After the defendant has been imprisoned for a lengthy period of time? >>>>>>>> Do you have any examples? I don't recall any high-profile ones >>>>>>>> off-hand.
Auriol Grey!!
I'm not sure that's a "technicality" so much as an "almighty fuck-up", >>>>>> which surely cannot be common. But yes she should get compensation for >>>>>> her time in prison. (I don't think she deserves it, but that isn't the >>>>>> point.)
She'd probaly also get a *free* stick, on the NHS, if she asked for one. >>>>>
There's simply no justice any more, is there ?
That seems very mean of you, I think she definitely deserves a stick
if she wants one.
Are you sure ?
Pretty sure, yes.
quote:
She walked with a limp and wore a lower leg brace. She had lost half her >>> sight in each eye. The agreed facts at trial record that the consultant
ophthalmologist who examined her, said that as a result of her brain
operation, where part of the left hand side of her brain was removed,
she has a total loss of visual field to the right side of view; i.e.
each eye has a total loss of the right half of the visual field (which
is completely different from closing your right eye and assuming that
is what it looks like).
At the time of the incident, as now, the appellant lived in supported
accommodation.
5.
When interviewed by the police, the appellant referred to her difficulties >>> with mobility and eyesight but said that she did not consider that she had >>> a mental disability.
She said that the cyclist had been travelling towards her at speed and that >>> she had flinched out with her left arm to protect herself and
avoid being hurt. She told the police that she was not sure what she
had said. After the CCTV with audio was played to her, she said she
could not explain why she had spoken in that way but maintained that
her actions were to protect herself.
unquote:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/20240508-R-v-Auriol-Gray.pdf
Its incredible the lies these half-blind cripples will come out with
at times, don't you think ?
What on earth are you on about? Are you saying that we should regard
people with disabilities simply as perpetual victims?
Er no.
Whoever mentioned "victims" ?
On 2025-03-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvtqnkt.5a3.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-03-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvtqdku.5a3.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-03-21, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
On 20/03/2025 09:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:
It happens a lot that convictions are overturned on technicalities? >>>>>>> After the defendant has been imprisoned for a lengthy period of time? >>>>>>> Do you have any examples? I don't recall any high-profile ones
off-hand.
Auriol Grey!!
I'm not sure that's a "technicality" so much as an "almighty fuck-up", >>>>> which surely cannot be common. But yes she should get compensation for >>>>> her time in prison. (I don't think she deserves it, but that isn't the >>>>> point.)
She'd probaly also get a *free* stick, on the NHS, if she asked for one. >>>>
There's simply no justice any more, is there ?
That seems very mean of you, I think she definitely deserves a stick
if she wants one.
Are you sure ?
Pretty sure, yes.
quote:
She walked with a limp and wore a lower leg brace. She had lost half her
sight in each eye. The agreed facts at trial record that the consultant
ophthalmologist who examined her, said that as a result of her brain
operation, where part of the left hand side of her brain was removed,
she has a total loss of visual field to the right side of view; i.e.
each eye has a total loss of the right half of the visual field (which
is completely different from closing your right eye and assuming that
is what it looks like).
At the time of the incident, as now, the appellant lived in supported
accommodation.
5.
When interviewed by the police, the appellant referred to her difficulties >> with mobility and eyesight but said that she did not consider that she had >> a mental disability.
She said that the cyclist had been travelling towards her at speed and that >> she had flinched out with her left arm to protect herself and
avoid being hurt. She told the police that she was not sure what she
had said. After the CCTV with audio was played to her, she said she
could not explain why she had spoken in that way but maintained that
her actions were to protect herself.
unquote:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/20240508-R-v-Auriol-Gray.pdf
Its incredible the lies these half-blind cripples will come out with
at times, don't you think ?
What on earth are you on about? Are you saying that we should regard
people with disabilities simply as perpetual victims?
On 2025-03-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvtr0ge.5a3.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-03-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvtqnkt.5a3.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-03-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvtqdku.5a3.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-03-21, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
On 20/03/2025 09:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:
It happens a lot that convictions are overturned on technicalities? >>>>>>>>> After the defendant has been imprisoned for a lengthy period of time? >>>>>>>>> Do you have any examples? I don't recall any high-profile ones >>>>>>>>> off-hand.
Auriol Grey!!
I'm not sure that's a "technicality" so much as an "almighty fuck-up", >>>>>>> which surely cannot be common. But yes she should get compensation for >>>>>>> her time in prison. (I don't think she deserves it, but that isn't the >>>>>>> point.)
She'd probaly also get a *free* stick, on the NHS, if she asked for one. >>>>>>
There's simply no justice any more, is there ?
That seems very mean of you, I think she definitely deserves a stick >>>>> if she wants one.
Are you sure ?
Pretty sure, yes.
quote:
She walked with a limp and wore a lower leg brace. She had lost half her >>>> sight in each eye. The agreed facts at trial record that the consultant >>>> ophthalmologist who examined her, said that as a result of her brain
operation, where part of the left hand side of her brain was removed,
she has a total loss of visual field to the right side of view; i.e.
each eye has a total loss of the right half of the visual field (which >>>> is completely different from closing your right eye and assuming that
is what it looks like).
At the time of the incident, as now, the appellant lived in supported
accommodation.
5.
When interviewed by the police, the appellant referred to her difficulties >>>> with mobility and eyesight but said that she did not consider that she had >>>> a mental disability.
She said that the cyclist had been travelling towards her at speed and that
she had flinched out with her left arm to protect herself and
avoid being hurt. She told the police that she was not sure what she
had said. After the CCTV with audio was played to her, she said she
could not explain why she had spoken in that way but maintained that
her actions were to protect herself.
unquote:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/20240508-R-v-Auriol-Gray.pdf
Its incredible the lies these half-blind cripples will come out with
at times, don't you think ?
What on earth are you on about? Are you saying that we should regard
people with disabilities simply as perpetual victims?
Er no.
Whoever mentioned "victims" ?
So what on earth are you on about?
On 21/03/2025 11:41 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m42oguFqceoU1@mid.individual.net...
On 20/03/2025 08:30 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 20/03/2025 02:24, JNugent wrote:
On 19/03/2025 04:12 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 15:48:59 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 19/03/2025 02:46 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 19/03/2025 14:10, Jeff Gaines wrote:It'd be at least interesting to know whether the gentleman in the >>>>>>> current controversy went "No comment" in police interviews.
Fredxx wrote:
On 19/03/2025 12:45, Jeff Layman wrote:
There's an interesting report in the BBC news pages today at >>>>>>>>>>> <https:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rkvxlkpx2o>. Looks like >>>>>>>>>>> it's
another "Post Office" case to avoid paying compensation for as long >>>>>>>>>>> as possible.
To prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he had not committed the >>>>>>>>>> crimes sounds a very high bar.
I guess there was no other suspect in the running either.
How do you prove a negative like that to any standard?
I think the compensation scheme is designed to compensate those who >>>>>>>> were convicted as a result of a miscarriage of justice, in the sense >>>>>>>> that, for instance, experts or police lied or concealed evidence. >>>>>>>>
Merely winning your appeal is not enough. And I think that makes good >>>>>>>> sense, otherwise everyone who wins their appeal will expect
compensation.
So, if I win my appeal because new DNA analysis proves that the >>>>>>>> culprit
could not have been me, then maybe I'd get compensation. If I win >>>>>>>> because the jury were not directed properly about the strength of the >>>>>>>> forensic science, then I wouldn't get compensation. As far as I know. >>>>>>>
You mean they exercised their right to remain silent. It seems a bit off >>>>>> that to punish someone for exercising that right, you remove their right >>>>>> to freedom. I guess your view is they are lucky they didn't lose their >>>>>> right to life then ?
Going "No comment", contrary to what some claim about "right to
silence", is often - perhaps usually - heard and read as "Guilty, but >>>>> I'm saying nowt and perhaps you won't be able to prove it".
Only in popular myth, and on the telly.
No, no.
You are at least as aware as I am that many real-life police interviews, broadcast or
uploaded to video-sharing sites, have had interviewees replying No comment" to every
question. They are not mythical and obviously are skewed towards cases where the jury
verdict was (eventually) "Guilty".
Totally unconvinced.
No comment is the most sensible response when you are interrogated by a >>>> police officer. The police will be trying to build a case against you, >>>> piece by piece. They are not seeking the truth, so much as seeking a
reasonably watertight case that can be presented in court.
Another poster has already argued to the same effect as I am doing.
The current Judge's caution warns suspected persons of that potential >>>>> effect.
"But it may harm your defence if you don't mention when questioned
something which you later rely on in court".
That is intended to appy to the sort of scenario in which you have an
excellent defence but choose to keep it a secret. Maybe an alibi. If
such evidence is disclosed very late, there will be a suspicion that it >>>> might be fraudulent.
It is intended to apply to every sort of case.
A relative was an officer of the Police Federation at Fed HQ (Proctor Street). I was
kept abreast of the issues for the federation at the time of the PACE Bill. >>>>
Pretending that this is not the case achieves nothing.
There is no benefit to society or to victims of crime in letting
guilty persons escape conviction.
Quite so.
Unfortunately there is a benefit to society in putting the wrong person >>>> behind bars. It gives the victims closure and it saves money and court >>>> time. There is huge resentment among victims and among the public at
large when it is argued that Lucy Letby or Abdelbaset al-Megrahi might >>>> be innocent.
That - where and if it happens - is clearly an illusory benefit. To the extent that
it
leaves the true culprit unpunished, it is a *disbenefit* to society.
How can it possibly be an illusory benefit ?
Did you read the sentence immediately after the one containing that phrase?
If relatives of the victim(s) believe the real culprit has been convicted and punished
then the desire for retribution will have been satisfied. If other potential criminals
are deterred by the fact that a culprit has been convicted and punished, then the
requirement for deterrence will have been served. The rest of the public, society
as a whole, except for the actual criminal etc., will believe that the real culprit
has been convicted and punished and so can maintain the "necessary illusion" that
the Criminal Justice System works exactly as planned.
A "necessary illusion", eh?
What one perceives in an illusion is... erm... illusionary.
The real culprit is free to offend again. That's the disbenefit.
On 21/03/2025 11:41 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m42oguFqceoU1@mid.individual.net...
On 20/03/2025 08:30 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 20/03/2025 02:24, JNugent wrote:
On 19/03/2025 04:12 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 15:48:59 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 19/03/2025 02:46 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 19/03/2025 14:10, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Fredxx wrote:
On 19/03/2025 12:45, Jeff Layman wrote:
There's an interesting report in the BBC news pages today at >>>>>>>>>>> <https:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rkvxlkpx2o>. Looks like >>>>>>>>>>> it's
another "Post Office" case to avoid paying compensation for >>>>>>>>>>> as long
as possible.
To prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he had not committed >>>>>>>>>> the
crimes sounds a very high bar.
I guess there was no other suspect in the running either.
How do you prove a negative like that to any standard?
I think the compensation scheme is designed to compensate those who >>>>>>>> were convicted as a result of a miscarriage of justice, in the >>>>>>>> sense
that, for instance, experts or police lied or concealed evidence. >>>>>>>>
Merely winning your appeal is not enough. And I think that makes >>>>>>>> good
sense, otherwise everyone who wins their appeal will expect
compensation.
So, if I win my appeal because new DNA analysis proves that the >>>>>>>> culprit
could not have been me, then maybe I'd get compensation. If I win >>>>>>>> because the jury were not directed properly about the strength >>>>>>>> of the
forensic science, then I wouldn't get compensation. As far as I >>>>>>>> know.
It'd be at least interesting to know whether the gentleman in the >>>>>>> current controversy went "No comment" in police interviews.
You mean they exercised their right to remain silent. It seems a
bit off
that to punish someone for exercising that right, you remove their >>>>>> right
to freedom. I guess your view is they are lucky they didn't lose
their
right to life then ?
Going "No comment", contrary to what some claim about "right to
silence", is often - perhaps usually - heard and read as "Guilty, but >>>>> I'm saying nowt and perhaps you won't be able to prove it".
Only in popular myth, and on the telly.
No, no.
You are at least as aware as I am that many real-life police
interviews, broadcast or
uploaded to video-sharing sites, have had interviewees replying No
comment" to every
question. They are not mythical and obviously are skewed towards
cases where the jury
verdict was (eventually) "Guilty".
Totally unconvinced.
No comment is the most sensible response when you are interrogated by a >>>> police officer. The police will be trying to build a case against you, >>>> piece by piece. They are not seeking the truth, so much as seeking a
reasonably watertight case that can be presented in court.
Another poster has already argued to the same effect as I am doing.
The current Judge's caution warns suspected persons of that potential >>>>> effect.
"But it may harm your defence if you don't mention when questioned
something which you later rely on in court".
That is intended to appy to the sort of scenario in which you have an
excellent defence but choose to keep it a secret. Maybe an alibi. If
such evidence is disclosed very late, there will be a suspicion that it >>>> might be fraudulent.
It is intended to apply to every sort of case.
A relative was an officer of the Police Federation at Fed HQ (Proctor
Street). I was
kept abreast of the issues for the federation at the time of the PACE
Bill.
Pretending that this is not the case achieves nothing.
There is no benefit to society or to victims of crime in letting
guilty persons escape conviction.
Quite so.
Unfortunately there is a benefit to society in putting the wrong person >>>> behind bars. It gives the victims closure and it saves money and court >>>> time. There is huge resentment among victims and among the public at
large when it is argued that Lucy Letby or Abdelbaset al-Megrahi might >>>> be innocent.
That - where and if it happens - is clearly an illusory benefit. To
the extent that it
leaves the true culprit unpunished, it is a *disbenefit* to society.
How can it possibly be an illusory benefit ?
Did you read the sentence immediately after the one containing that phrase?
If relatives of the victim(s) believe the real culprit has been
convicted and punished
then the desire for retribution will have been satisfied. If other
potential criminals
are deterred by the fact that a culprit has been convicted and
punished, then the
requirement for deterrence will have been served. The rest of the
public, society
as a whole, except for the actual criminal etc., will believe that
the real culprit
has been convicted and punished and so can maintain the "necessary
illusion" that
the Criminal Justice System works exactly as planned.
A "necessary illusion", eh?
What one perceives in an illusion is... erm... illusionary.
The real culprit is free to offend again. That's the disbenefit.
Which happens to be directly contrary to the fact that its clearly
impossible to
identify, arrest, try, convict and punish the real perpetrators of a
sizeable
percentage of actual crimes, in the first place.
And?
Does that make it alright to pick the first greasy-looking candidate on
the street and process them as though they're guilty?
It's imagining otherwise which is the "disbelief".
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnvtr2r6.5a3.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-03-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvtr0ge.5a3.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-03-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvtqnkt.5a3.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-03-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvtqdku.5a3.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-03-21, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
On 20/03/2025 09:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:
It happens a lot that convictions are overturned on technicalities? >>>>>>>>>> After the defendant has been imprisoned for a lengthy period of time?
Do you have any examples? I don't recall any high-profile ones >>>>>>>>>> off-hand.
Auriol Grey!!
I'm not sure that's a "technicality" so much as an "almighty fuck-up", >>>>>>>> which surely cannot be common. But yes she should get compensation for >>>>>>>> her time in prison. (I don't think she deserves it, but that isn't the >>>>>>>> point.)
She'd probaly also get a *free* stick, on the NHS, if she asked for one.
There's simply no justice any more, is there ?
That seems very mean of you, I think she definitely deserves a stick >>>>>> if she wants one.
Are you sure ?
Pretty sure, yes.
quote:
She walked with a limp and wore a lower leg brace. She had lost half her >>>>> sight in each eye. The agreed facts at trial record that the consultant >>>>> ophthalmologist who examined her, said that as a result of her brain >>>>> operation, where part of the left hand side of her brain was removed, >>>>> she has a total loss of visual field to the right side of view; i.e. >>>>> each eye has a total loss of the right half of the visual field (which >>>>> is completely different from closing your right eye and assuming that >>>>> is what it looks like).
At the time of the incident, as now, the appellant lived in supported >>>>> accommodation.
5.
When interviewed by the police, the appellant referred to her difficulties
with mobility and eyesight but said that she did not consider that she had
a mental disability.
She said that the cyclist had been travelling towards her at speed and that
she had flinched out with her left arm to protect herself and
avoid being hurt. She told the police that she was not sure what she >>>>> had said. After the CCTV with audio was played to her, she said she
could not explain why she had spoken in that way but maintained that >>>>> her actions were to protect herself.
unquote:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/20240508-R-v-Auriol-Gray.pdf
Its incredible the lies these half-blind cripples will come out with >>>>> at times, don't you think ?
What on earth are you on about? Are you saying that we should regard
people with disabilities simply as perpetual victims?
Er no.
Whoever mentioned "victims" ?
So what on earth are you on about?
The evident mendacity of one particular half blind cripple
So do you agree or not ?
On 2025-03-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvtr2r6.5a3.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-03-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvtr0ge.5a3.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-03-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvtqnkt.5a3.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-03-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvtqdku.5a3.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-03-21, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
On 20/03/2025 09:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:
It happens a lot that convictions are overturned on technicalities? >>>>>>>>>>> After the defendant has been imprisoned for a lengthy period of time?
Do you have any examples? I don't recall any high-profile ones >>>>>>>>>>> off-hand.
Auriol Grey!!
I'm not sure that's a "technicality" so much as an "almighty fuck-up",
which surely cannot be common. But yes she should get compensation for
her time in prison. (I don't think she deserves it, but that isn't the
point.)
She'd probaly also get a *free* stick, on the NHS, if she asked for one.
There's simply no justice any more, is there ?
That seems very mean of you, I think she definitely deserves a stick >>>>>>> if she wants one.
Are you sure ?
Pretty sure, yes.
quote:
She walked with a limp and wore a lower leg brace. She had lost half her >>>>>> sight in each eye. The agreed facts at trial record that the consultant >>>>>> ophthalmologist who examined her, said that as a result of her brain >>>>>> operation, where part of the left hand side of her brain was removed, >>>>>> she has a total loss of visual field to the right side of view; i.e. >>>>>> each eye has a total loss of the right half of the visual field (which >>>>>> is completely different from closing your right eye and assuming that >>>>>> is what it looks like).
At the time of the incident, as now, the appellant lived in supported >>>>>> accommodation.
5.
When interviewed by the police, the appellant referred to her difficulties
with mobility and eyesight but said that she did not consider that she had
a mental disability.
She said that the cyclist had been travelling towards her at speed and that
she had flinched out with her left arm to protect herself and
avoid being hurt. She told the police that she was not sure what she >>>>>> had said. After the CCTV with audio was played to her, she said she >>>>>> could not explain why she had spoken in that way but maintained that >>>>>> her actions were to protect herself.
unquote:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/20240508-R-v-Auriol-Gray.pdf
Its incredible the lies these half-blind cripples will come out with >>>>>> at times, don't you think ?
What on earth are you on about? Are you saying that we should regard >>>>> people with disabilities simply as perpetual victims?
Er no.
Whoever mentioned "victims" ?
So what on earth are you on about?
The evident mendacity of one particular half blind cripple
So do you agree or not ?
I have no idea what you are asking me to agree with or why.
For the final time of asking, what on earth are you on about?
If you have a point to make, make it.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnvtrruk.5a3.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-03-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvtr2r6.5a3.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-03-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvtr0ge.5a3.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-03-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvtqnkt.5a3.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-03-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvtqdku.5a3.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-03-21, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
On 20/03/2025 09:29, Jon Ribbens wrote:
It happens a lot that convictions are overturned on technicalities?
After the defendant has been imprisoned for a lengthy period of time?
Do you have any examples? I don't recall any high-profile ones >>>>>>>>>>>> off-hand.
Auriol Grey!!
I'm not sure that's a "technicality" so much as an "almighty fuck-up",
which surely cannot be common. But yes she should get compensation for
her time in prison. (I don't think she deserves it, but that isn't the
point.)
She'd probaly also get a *free* stick, on the NHS, if she asked for one.
There's simply no justice any more, is there ?
That seems very mean of you, I think she definitely deserves a stick >>>>>>>> if she wants one.
Are you sure ?
Pretty sure, yes.
quote:
She walked with a limp and wore a lower leg brace. She had lost half her
sight in each eye. The agreed facts at trial record that the consultant >>>>>>> ophthalmologist who examined her, said that as a result of her brain >>>>>>> operation, where part of the left hand side of her brain was removed, >>>>>>> she has a total loss of visual field to the right side of view; i.e. >>>>>>> each eye has a total loss of the right half of the visual field (which >>>>>>> is completely different from closing your right eye and assuming that >>>>>>> is what it looks like).
At the time of the incident, as now, the appellant lived in supported >>>>>>> accommodation.
5.
When interviewed by the police, the appellant referred to her difficulties
with mobility and eyesight but said that she did not consider that she had
a mental disability.
She said that the cyclist had been travelling towards her at speed and that
she had flinched out with her left arm to protect herself and >>>>>>> avoid being hurt. She told the police that she was not sure what she >>>>>>> had said. After the CCTV with audio was played to her, she said she >>>>>>> could not explain why she had spoken in that way but maintained that >>>>>>> her actions were to protect herself.
unquote:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/20240508-R-v-Auriol-Gray.pdf
Its incredible the lies these half-blind cripples will come out with >>>>>>> at times, don't you think ?
What on earth are you on about? Are you saying that we should regard >>>>>> people with disabilities simply as perpetual victims?
Er no.
Whoever mentioned "victims" ?
So what on earth are you on about?
The evident mendacity of one particular half blind cripple
So do you agree or not ?
I have no idea what you are asking me to agree with or why.
For the final time of asking, what on earth are you on about?
If you have a point to make, make it.
Why do you think Auriol Gray "doesn't deserve" compensation ?
On 2025-03-22, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote
I have no idea what you are asking me to agree with or why.
For the final time of asking, what on earth are you on about?
If you have a point to make, make it.
Why do you think Auriol Gray "doesn't deserve" compensation ?
Because of what I saw on the video that featured the interaction between
her and the deceased cyclist, and the fact that the jury decided it was
not an accident.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnvttaqo.5a3.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-03-22, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
< snip >
Why do you think Auriol Gray "doesn't deserve" compensation ?
Because of what I saw on the video that featured the interaction between
her and the deceased cyclist,
I see.
On 2025-03-22, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Why do you think Auriol Gray "doesn't deserve" compensation ?
Because of what I saw on the video that featured the interaction between
her and the deceased cyclist,
On 2025-03-22, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Why do you think Auriol Gray "doesn't deserve" compensation ?
Because of what I saw on the video that featured the interaction between
her and the deceased cyclist, and the fact that the jury decided it was
not an accident.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:m45abtF7msiU1@mid.individual.net...
On 21/03/2025 11:41 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m42oguFqceoU1@mid.individual.net...
On 20/03/2025 08:30 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 20/03/2025 02:24, JNugent wrote:
On 19/03/2025 04:12 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 15:48:59 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 19/03/2025 02:46 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 19/03/2025 14:10, Jeff Gaines wrote:It'd be at least interesting to know whether the gentleman in the >>>>>>>> current controversy went "No comment" in police interviews.
Fredxx wrote:
On 19/03/2025 12:45, Jeff Layman wrote:
There's an interesting report in the BBC news pages today at >>>>>>>>>>>> <https:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rkvxlkpx2o>. Looks like >>>>>>>>>>>> it's
another "Post Office" case to avoid paying compensation for as long
as possible.
To prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he had not committed the >>>>>>>>>>> crimes sounds a very high bar.
I guess there was no other suspect in the running either.
How do you prove a negative like that to any standard?
I think the compensation scheme is designed to compensate those who >>>>>>>>> were convicted as a result of a miscarriage of justice, in the sense >>>>>>>>> that, for instance, experts or police lied or concealed evidence. >>>>>>>>>
Merely winning your appeal is not enough. And I think that makes good >>>>>>>>> sense, otherwise everyone who wins their appeal will expect
compensation.
So, if I win my appeal because new DNA analysis proves that the >>>>>>>>> culprit
could not have been me, then maybe I'd get compensation. If I win >>>>>>>>> because the jury were not directed properly about the strength of the >>>>>>>>> forensic science, then I wouldn't get compensation. As far as I know. >>>>>>>>
You mean they exercised their right to remain silent. It seems a bit off
that to punish someone for exercising that right, you remove their right
to freedom. I guess your view is they are lucky they didn't lose their >>>>>>> right to life then ?
Going "No comment", contrary to what some claim about "right to
silence", is often - perhaps usually - heard and read as "Guilty, but >>>>>> I'm saying nowt and perhaps you won't be able to prove it".
Only in popular myth, and on the telly.
No, no.
You are at least as aware as I am that many real-life police interviews, broadcast or
uploaded to video-sharing sites, have had interviewees replying No comment" to every
question. They are not mythical and obviously are skewed towards cases where the jury
verdict was (eventually) "Guilty".
Totally unconvinced.
No comment is the most sensible response when you are interrogated by a >>>>> police officer. The police will be trying to build a case against you, >>>>> piece by piece. They are not seeking the truth, so much as seeking a >>>>> reasonably watertight case that can be presented in court.
Another poster has already argued to the same effect as I am doing.
The current Judge's caution warns suspected persons of that potential >>>>>> effect.
"But it may harm your defence if you don't mention when questioned
something which you later rely on in court".
That is intended to appy to the sort of scenario in which you have an >>>>> excellent defence but choose to keep it a secret. Maybe an alibi. If >>>>> such evidence is disclosed very late, there will be a suspicion that it >>>>> might be fraudulent.
It is intended to apply to every sort of case.
A relative was an officer of the Police Federation at Fed HQ (Proctor Street). I was
kept abreast of the issues for the federation at the time of the PACE Bill.
Pretending that this is not the case achieves nothing.
There is no benefit to society or to victims of crime in letting
guilty persons escape conviction.
Quite so.
Unfortunately there is a benefit to society in putting the wrong person >>>>> behind bars. It gives the victims closure and it saves money and court >>>>> time. There is huge resentment among victims and among the public at >>>>> large when it is argued that Lucy Letby or Abdelbaset al-Megrahi might >>>>> be innocent.
That - where and if it happens - is clearly an illusory benefit. To the extent that
it
leaves the true culprit unpunished, it is a *disbenefit* to society.
How can it possibly be an illusory benefit ?
Did you read the sentence immediately after the one containing that phrase? >>>
If relatives of the victim(s) believe the real culprit has been convicted and punished
then the desire for retribution will have been satisfied. If other potential criminals
are deterred by the fact that a culprit has been convicted and punished, then the
requirement for deterrence will have been served. The rest of the public, society
as a whole, except for the actual criminal etc., will believe that the real culprit
has been convicted and punished and so can maintain the "necessary illusion" that
the Criminal Justice System works exactly as planned.
A "necessary illusion", eh?
What one perceives in an illusion is... erm... illusionary.
The real culprit is free to offend again. That's the disbenefit.
Not in those cases where it has proved impossible to discover,
apprehend, arrest, convict and punish the actual culprit.
Unless you wish to claim that...
It is always possible to to discover, apprehend, arrest, convict
and punish the actual culprit.
So are you claiming that ?
Yes or no ?
On 21/03/2025 03:23 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m45abtF7msiU1@mid.individual.net...
On 21/03/2025 11:41 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m42oguFqceoU1@mid.individual.net...
On 20/03/2025 08:30 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 20/03/2025 02:24, JNugent wrote:
On 19/03/2025 04:12 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 15:48:59 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 19/03/2025 02:46 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 19/03/2025 14:10, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Fredxx wrote:
On 19/03/2025 12:45, Jeff Layman wrote:
There's an interesting report in the BBC news pages today at >>>>>>>>>>>>> <https:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rkvxlkpx2o>. Looks like >>>>>>>>>>>>> it's
another "Post Office" case to avoid paying compensation for as long
as possible.
To prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he had not committed the >>>>>>>>>>>> crimes sounds a very high bar.
I guess there was no other suspect in the running either. >>>>>>>>>>How do you prove a negative like that to any standard?
I think the compensation scheme is designed to compensate those who >>>>>>>>>> were convicted as a result of a miscarriage of justice, in the sense >>>>>>>>>> that, for instance, experts or police lied or concealed evidence. >>>>>>>>>>
Merely winning your appeal is not enough. And I think that makes good
sense, otherwise everyone who wins their appeal will expect >>>>>>>>>> compensation.
So, if I win my appeal because new DNA analysis proves that the >>>>>>>>>> culprit
could not have been me, then maybe I'd get compensation. If I win >>>>>>>>>> because the jury were not directed properly about the strength of the
forensic science, then I wouldn't get compensation. As far as I know.
It'd be at least interesting to know whether the gentleman in the >>>>>>>>> current controversy went "No comment" in police interviews.
You mean they exercised their right to remain silent. It seems a bit off
that to punish someone for exercising that right, you remove their right
to freedom. I guess your view is they are lucky they didn't lose their >>>>>>>> right to life then ?
Going "No comment", contrary to what some claim about "right to
silence", is often - perhaps usually - heard and read as "Guilty, but >>>>>>> I'm saying nowt and perhaps you won't be able to prove it".
Only in popular myth, and on the telly.
No, no.
You are at least as aware as I am that many real-life police interviews, >>>>> broadcast or
uploaded to video-sharing sites, have had interviewees replying No
comment" to every
question. They are not mythical and obviously are skewed towards cases >>>>> where the jury
verdict was (eventually) "Guilty".
Totally unconvinced.
No comment is the most sensible response when you are interrogated by a >>>>>> police officer. The police will be trying to build a case against you, >>>>>> piece by piece. They are not seeking the truth, so much as seeking a >>>>>> reasonably watertight case that can be presented in court.
Another poster has already argued to the same effect as I am doing. >>>>>>
The current Judge's caution warns suspected persons of that potential >>>>>>> effect.
"But it may harm your defence if you don't mention when questioned >>>>>> something which you later rely on in court".
That is intended to appy to the sort of scenario in which you have an >>>>>> excellent defence but choose to keep it a secret. Maybe an alibi. If >>>>>> such evidence is disclosed very late, there will be a suspicion that it >>>>>> might be fraudulent.
It is intended to apply to every sort of case.
A relative was an officer of the Police Federation at Fed HQ (Proctor >>>>> Street). I was
kept abreast of the issues for the federation at the time of the PACE Bill.
Pretending that this is not the case achieves nothing.
There is no benefit to society or to victims of crime in letting >>>>>>> guilty persons escape conviction.
Quite so.
Unfortunately there is a benefit to society in putting the wrong person >>>>>> behind bars. It gives the victims closure and it saves money and court >>>>>> time. There is huge resentment among victims and among the public at >>>>>> large when it is argued that Lucy Letby or Abdelbaset al-Megrahi might >>>>>> be innocent.
That - where and if it happens - is clearly an illusory benefit. To the >>>>> extent that
it
leaves the true culprit unpunished, it is a *disbenefit* to society.
How can it possibly be an illusory benefit ?
Did you read the sentence immediately after the one containing that phrase? >>>>
If relatives of the victim(s) believe the real culprit has been convicted >>>> and punished
then the desire for retribution will have been satisfied. If other
potential criminals
are deterred by the fact that a culprit has been convicted and punished, >>>> then the
requirement for deterrence will have been served. The rest of the public, >>>> society
as a whole, except for the actual criminal etc., will believe that the real
culprit
has been convicted and punished and so can maintain the "necessary
illusion" that
the Criminal Justice System works exactly as planned.
A "necessary illusion", eh?
What one perceives in an illusion is... erm... illusionary.
The real culprit is free to offend again. That's the disbenefit.
Not in those cases where it has proved impossible to discover,
apprehend, arrest, convict and punish the actual culprit.
Eh?
*Particularly* in "cases where it has proved impossible to discover, apprehend, arrest, convict and punish the actual culprit"!
Unless you wish to claim that...
It is always possible to to discover, apprehend, arrest, convict
and punish the actual culprit.
So are you claiming that ?
Yes or no ?
Of course not. But at the near margin, the proportion of successful
enquiries is relative to the resources deployed.
Allocate too few and "it will be impossible to discover, apprehend,
arrest, convict and punish the actual culprit".
Of course, that's why very large amounts of said resources are brought
into play for a murder enquiry and relatively few of them for a case of criminal damage to a bank branch's windows.
But you are getting away from the point. Not identifying and taking appropriate action against a culprit is always a social disbenefit.
As an example, whoever murdered PC Blakelock (remember him?), for
instance, is free to do it again (if they're still among us, forty years later). His (I'm assuming a male criminal here) getting away without
proper punishment is a grave injustice and disbenefit to society. There
are, as you know, a huge number of unsolved crimes. Not to many murders,
as a proportion, but one unsolved murder is one too many.
On 22 Mar 2025 at 14:34:29 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
But you are getting away from the point. Not identifying and taking
appropriate action against a culprit is always a social disbenefit.
As an example, whoever murdered PC Blakelock (remember him?), for
instance, is free to do it again (if they're still among us, forty years
later). His (I'm assuming a male criminal here) getting away without
proper punishment is a grave injustice and disbenefit to society. There
are, as you know, a huge number of unsolved crimes. Not to many murders,
as a proportion, but one unsolved murder is one too many.
The Blakelock murder led to one of the lowest points to which the English criminal justice system has ever sunk when they charged a black child who happened to be part of the crowd of people surrounding Blakelock with joint enterprise murder.
That does illustrate how strongly people felt about finding a scapegoat, if not the actual murderer(s).
On 20/03/2025 08:30, The Todal wrote:
On 20/03/2025 02:24, JNugent wrote:
Going "No comment", contrary to what some claim about "right to
silence", is often - perhaps usually - heard and read as "Guilty, but
I'm saying nowt and perhaps you won't be able to prove it".
Only in popular myth, and on the telly.
No comment is the most sensible response when you are interrogated by a
police officer. The police will be trying to build a case against you,
piece by piece. They are not seeking the truth, so much as seeking a
reasonably watertight case that can be presented in court.
Going 'no comment', especially after initially being cooperative, is a
very substantial indicator of guilt,
out. Why should anyone not want to give their side of the story if they
are in fact innocent?
out. Why should anyone not want to give their side of the story if they
are in fact innocent?
There are many reasons, most of them explained at length here in previous threads. For example, there are many situations in which there is nothing
you can say to prove your innocence; whereas there are many things you can say that might be twisted to suggest your guilt.
On 23/03/2025 08:27, Handsome Jack wrote:
out. Why should anyone not want to give their side of the story if they >>> are in fact innocent?
There are many reasons, most of them explained at length here in previous
threads. For example, there are many situations in which there is nothing
you can say to prove your innocence; whereas there are many things you can >> say that might be twisted to suggest your guilt.
Surely, everyone has seen this video, which explains it fully?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
Whilst I entirely agree with Norman that an innocent person would *want*
to give their side of the story, it is absolutely essential that they
don't. >
On 23/03/2025 08:27, Handsome Jack wrote:
out. Why should anyone not want to give their side of the story if they >>> are in fact innocent?
There are many reasons, most of them explained at length here in previous
threads. For example, there are many situations in which there is nothing
you can say to prove your innocence; whereas there are many things you
can
say that might be twisted to suggest your guilt.
Surely, everyone has seen this video, which explains it fully?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
Whilst I entirely agree with Norman that an innocent person would *want*
to give their side of the story, it is absolutely essential that they
don't. >
On 2025-03-23, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
On 23/03/2025 08:27, Handsome Jack wrote:
out. Why should anyone not want to give their side of the story if they >>>> are in fact innocent?
There are many reasons, most of them explained at length here in previous >>> threads. For example, there are many situations in which there is nothing >>> you can say to prove your innocence; whereas there are many things you can >>> say that might be twisted to suggest your guilt.
Surely, everyone has seen this video, which explains it fully?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
Whilst I entirely agree with Norman that an innocent person would *want*
to give their side of the story, it is absolutely essential that they
don't. >
Sadly, Norman refused to watch that educational video when it was
discussed in The Other Place in December 2015. It probably wouldn't have helped him though, since he didn't seem to understand the arguments in it when they were explained to him.
On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 10:52:14 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/03/2025 08:30, The Todal wrote:
On 20/03/2025 02:24, JNugent wrote:
Going "No comment", contrary to what some claim about "right to
silence", is often - perhaps usually - heard and read as "Guilty, but
I'm saying nowt and perhaps you won't be able to prove it".
Only in popular myth, and on the telly.
No comment is the most sensible response when you are interrogated by a
police officer. The police will be trying to build a case against you,
piece by piece. They are not seeking the truth, so much as seeking a
reasonably watertight case that can be presented in court.
Going 'no comment', especially after initially being cooperative, is a
very substantial indicator of guilt,
How would you go about proving this assertion?
as Mr Nugent accurately pointed
out. Why should anyone not want to give their side of the story if they
are in fact innocent?
There are many reasons, most of them explained at length here in previous threads. For example, there are many situations in which there is nothing
you can say to prove your innocence; whereas there are many things you can say that might be twisted to suggest your guilt.
On 23/03/2025 17:58, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-23, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
On 23/03/2025 08:27, Handsome Jack wrote:
out. Why should anyone not want to give their side of the story if they >>>>> are in fact innocent?
There are many reasons, most of them explained at length here in previous >>>> threads. For example, there are many situations in which there is nothing >>>> you can say to prove your innocence; whereas there are many things you can >>>> say that might be twisted to suggest your guilt.
Surely, everyone has seen this video, which explains it fully?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
Whilst I entirely agree with Norman that an innocent person would *want* >>> to give their side of the story, it is absolutely essential that they
don't. >
Sadly, Norman refused to watch that educational video when it was
discussed in The Other Place in December 2015. It probably wouldn't have
helped him though, since he didn't seem to understand the arguments in it
when they were explained to him.
I'm sure you can summarise the key points, if any, including why you
think a video from the USA is actually relevant under our judicial system.
On 23/03/2025 08:27, Handsome Jack wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 10:52:14 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/03/2025 08:30, The Todal wrote:
On 20/03/2025 02:24, JNugent wrote:
Going "No comment", contrary to what some claim about "right to
silence", is often - perhaps usually - heard and read as "Guilty, but >>>>> I'm saying nowt and perhaps you won't be able to prove it".
Only in popular myth, and on the telly.
No comment is the most sensible response when you are interrogated by a >>>> police officer. The police will be trying to build a case against you, >>>> piece by piece. They are not seeking the truth, so much as seeking a
reasonably watertight case that can be presented in court.
Going 'no comment', especially after initially being cooperative, is a
very substantial indicator of guilt,
How would you go about proving this assertion?
There's nothing to be proved. It's a fact, and you'd have to be very
strange not to appreciate it.
as Mr Nugent accurately pointed
out. Why should anyone not want to give their side of the story if they >>> are in fact innocent?
There are many reasons, most of them explained at length here in previous
threads. For example, there are many situations in which there is nothing
you can say to prove your innocence; whereas there are many things you can >> say that might be twisted to suggest your guilt.
There still has to be evidence that satisfies the CPS that they would
have a better chance than not of securing a conviction at trial, which
of course must anyway be 'beyond reasonable doubt' with at least 10 and probably all 12 of a jury agreeing. It's rightly a very high evidential hurdle for the police if you're actually innocent.
It depends how involved you were, what real evidence the police have
against you, and what defence you will surely know you have if you
weren't involved or weren't guilty. Going 'no comment' is bound to
bring more suspicion whether or not you were involved, and it's unlikely
to be a pleasant experience, so why risk it if you weren't?
On 23 Mar 2025 at 20:31:12 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 23/03/2025 08:27, Handsome Jack wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 10:52:14 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/03/2025 08:30, The Todal wrote:
On 20/03/2025 02:24, JNugent wrote:
Going "No comment", contrary to what some claim about "right to
silence", is often - perhaps usually - heard and read as "Guilty, but >>>>>> I'm saying nowt and perhaps you won't be able to prove it".
Only in popular myth, and on the telly.
No comment is the most sensible response when you are interrogated by a >>>>> police officer. The police will be trying to build a case against you, >>>>> piece by piece. They are not seeking the truth, so much as seeking a >>>>> reasonably watertight case that can be presented in court.
Going 'no comment', especially after initially being cooperative, is a >>>> very substantial indicator of guilt,
How would you go about proving this assertion?
There's nothing to be proved. It's a fact, and you'd have to be very
strange not to appreciate it.
as Mr Nugent accurately pointed
out. Why should anyone not want to give their side of the story if they >>>> are in fact innocent?
There are many reasons, most of them explained at length here in previous >>> threads. For example, there are many situations in which there is nothing >>> you can say to prove your innocence; whereas there are many things you can >>> say that might be twisted to suggest your guilt.
There still has to be evidence that satisfies the CPS that they would
have a better chance than not of securing a conviction at trial, which
of course must anyway be 'beyond reasonable doubt' with at least 10 and
probably all 12 of a jury agreeing. It's rightly a very high evidential
hurdle for the police if you're actually innocent.
It depends how involved you were, what real evidence the police have
against you, and what defence you will surely know you have if you
weren't involved or weren't guilty. Going 'no comment' is bound to
bring more suspicion whether or not you were involved, and it's unlikely
to be a pleasant experience, so why risk it if you weren't?
Endlessly repeating your opinion does not make it any more likely to be valid.
On 21/03/2025 03:23 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m45abtF7msiU1@mid.individual.net...
On 21/03/2025 11:41 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m42oguFqceoU1@mid.individual.net...
On 20/03/2025 08:30 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 20/03/2025 02:24, JNugent wrote:
On 19/03/2025 04:12 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 15:48:59 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 19/03/2025 02:46 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 19/03/2025 14:10, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Fredxx wrote:
On 19/03/2025 12:45, Jeff Layman wrote:
There's an interesting report in the BBC news pages today at >>>>>>>>>>>>> <https:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rkvxlkpx2o>. Looks like >>>>>>>>>>>>> it's
another "Post Office" case to avoid paying compensation for as long
as possible.
To prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he had not committed the >>>>>>>>>>>> crimes sounds a very high bar.
I guess there was no other suspect in the running either. >>>>>>>>>>How do you prove a negative like that to any standard?
I think the compensation scheme is designed to compensate those who >>>>>>>>>> were convicted as a result of a miscarriage of justice, in the sense >>>>>>>>>> that, for instance, experts or police lied or concealed evidence. >>>>>>>>>>
Merely winning your appeal is not enough. And I think that makes good
sense, otherwise everyone who wins their appeal will expect >>>>>>>>>> compensation.
So, if I win my appeal because new DNA analysis proves that the >>>>>>>>>> culprit
could not have been me, then maybe I'd get compensation. If I win >>>>>>>>>> because the jury were not directed properly about the strength of the
forensic science, then I wouldn't get compensation. As far as I know.
It'd be at least interesting to know whether the gentleman in the >>>>>>>>> current controversy went "No comment" in police interviews.
You mean they exercised their right to remain silent. It seems a bit off
that to punish someone for exercising that right, you remove their right
to freedom. I guess your view is they are lucky they didn't lose their >>>>>>>> right to life then ?
Going "No comment", contrary to what some claim about "right to
silence", is often - perhaps usually - heard and read as "Guilty, but >>>>>>> I'm saying nowt and perhaps you won't be able to prove it".
Only in popular myth, and on the telly.
No, no.
You are at least as aware as I am that many real-life police interviews, broadcast
or
uploaded to video-sharing sites, have had interviewees replying No comment" to
every
question. They are not mythical and obviously are skewed towards cases where the
jury
verdict was (eventually) "Guilty".
Totally unconvinced.
No comment is the most sensible response when you are interrogated by a >>>>>> police officer. The police will be trying to build a case against you, >>>>>> piece by piece. They are not seeking the truth, so much as seeking a >>>>>> reasonably watertight case that can be presented in court.
Another poster has already argued to the same effect as I am doing. >>>>>>
The current Judge's caution warns suspected persons of that potential >>>>>>> effect.
"But it may harm your defence if you don't mention when questioned >>>>>> something which you later rely on in court".
That is intended to appy to the sort of scenario in which you have an >>>>>> excellent defence but choose to keep it a secret. Maybe an alibi. If >>>>>> such evidence is disclosed very late, there will be a suspicion that it >>>>>> might be fraudulent.
It is intended to apply to every sort of case.
A relative was an officer of the Police Federation at Fed HQ (Proctor Street). I
was
kept abreast of the issues for the federation at the time of the PACE Bill.
Pretending that this is not the case achieves nothing.
There is no benefit to society or to victims of crime in letting >>>>>>> guilty persons escape conviction.
Quite so.
Unfortunately there is a benefit to society in putting the wrong person >>>>>> behind bars. It gives the victims closure and it saves money and court >>>>>> time. There is huge resentment among victims and among the public at >>>>>> large when it is argued that Lucy Letby or Abdelbaset al-Megrahi might >>>>>> be innocent.
That - where and if it happens - is clearly an illusory benefit. To the extent that
it
leaves the true culprit unpunished, it is a *disbenefit* to society.
How can it possibly be an illusory benefit ?
Did you read the sentence immediately after the one containing that phrase? >>>>
If relatives of the victim(s) believe the real culprit has been convicted and
punished
then the desire for retribution will have been satisfied. If other potential
criminals
are deterred by the fact that a culprit has been convicted and punished, then the
requirement for deterrence will have been served. The rest of the public, society
as a whole, except for the actual criminal etc., will believe that the real culprit
has been convicted and punished and so can maintain the "necessary illusion" that
the Criminal Justice System works exactly as planned.
A "necessary illusion", eh?
What one perceives in an illusion is... erm... illusionary.
The real culprit is free to offend again. That's the disbenefit.
Not in those cases where it has proved impossible to discover,
apprehend, arrest, convict and punish the actual culprit.
Eh?
*Particularly* in "cases where it has proved impossible to discover, apprehend, arrest,
convict and punish the actual culprit"!
Unless you wish to claim that...
It is always possible to to discover, apprehend, arrest, convict
and punish the actual culprit.
So are you claiming that ?
Yes or no ?
Of course not. But at the near margin, the proportion of successful enquiries is
relative to the resources deployed.
Allocate too few and "it will be impossible to discover, apprehend, arrest, convict and
punish the actual culprit".
Of course, that's why very large amounts of said resources are brought into play for a
murder enquiry and relatively few of them for a case of criminal damage to a bank
branch's windows.
But you are getting away from the point. Not identifying and taking appropriate action
against a culprit is always a social disbenefit.
As an example, whoever murdered PC Blakelock (remember him?), for instance, is free to
do it again (if they're still among us, forty years later).
proper punishment is a grave injustice and disbenefit to society. There are, as you
know, a huge number of unsolved crimes. Not to many murders, as a proportion, but one
unsolved murder is one too many.
On 2025-03-23, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 23/03/2025 17:58, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-23, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
On 23/03/2025 08:27, Handsome Jack wrote:
out. Why should anyone not want to give their side of the story if they >>>>>> are in fact innocent?
There are many reasons, most of them explained at length here in previous >>>>> threads. For example, there are many situations in which there is nothing >>>>> you can say to prove your innocence; whereas there are many things you can
say that might be twisted to suggest your guilt.
Surely, everyone has seen this video, which explains it fully?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
Whilst I entirely agree with Norman that an innocent person would *want* >>>> to give their side of the story, it is absolutely essential that they
don't. >
Sadly, Norman refused to watch that educational video when it was
discussed in The Other Place in December 2015. It probably wouldn't have >>> helped him though, since he didn't seem to understand the arguments in it >>> when they were explained to him.
I'm sure you can summarise the key points, if any, including why you
think a video from the USA is actually relevant under our judicial system.
As I said, I already did, in December 2015. You can go back and read it
again if you like - maybe you'll get the point a second time around.
On 22/03/2025 08:03 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Mar 2025 at 14:34:29 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
But you are getting away from the point. Not identifying and taking
appropriate action against a culprit is always a social disbenefit.
As an example, whoever murdered PC Blakelock (remember him?), for
instance, is free to do it again (if they're still among us, forty years >>> later). His (I'm assuming a male criminal here) getting away without
proper punishment is a grave injustice and disbenefit to society. There
are, as you know, a huge number of unsolved crimes. Not to many murders, >>> as a proportion, but one unsolved murder is one too many.
The Blakelock murder led to one of the lowest points to which the English
criminal justice system has ever sunk when they charged a black child who
happened to be part of the crowd of people surrounding Blakelock with
joint
enterprise murder.
That does illustrate how strongly people felt about finding a
scapegoat, if
not the actual murderer(s).
If you are of the opinion that a child should never be charged even when
the evidence links them to the crime, I urge you not to express that
view anywhere within earshot of the mother of James Bulger.
On 23/03/2025 03:21, JNugent wrote:
On 22/03/2025 08:03 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Mar 2025 at 14:34:29 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
But you are getting away from the point. Not identifying and taking
appropriate action against a culprit is always a social disbenefit.
As an example, whoever murdered PC Blakelock (remember him?), for
instance, is free to do it again (if they're still among us, forty years >>>> later). His (I'm assuming a male criminal here) getting away without
proper punishment is a grave injustice and disbenefit to society. There >>>> are, as you know, a huge number of unsolved crimes. Not to many murders, >>>> as a proportion, but one unsolved murder is one too many.
The Blakelock murder led to one of the lowest points to which the English >>> criminal justice system has ever sunk when they charged a black child who >>> happened to be part of the crowd of people surrounding Blakelock with
joint
enterprise murder.
That does illustrate how strongly people felt about finding a
scapegoat, if
not the actual murderer(s).
"...a black child who happened to be part of the crowd of people..."
(Also, "...children as young as...".)
If you are of the opinion that a child should never be charged even when
the evidence links them to the crime, I urge you not to express that
view anywhere within earshot of the mother of James Bulger.
Only since we seem to be living in a society ruled by the parents of
dead children. (What kind of -ocracy is that? Latin/Greek scholars
please reply.)
Lately they all want our (and our teenagers') freedoms to be curtailed,
with, among other measures, calls to ban/restrict access to smart phones/social media. (Brianna Ghey's mother is having another go this Thursday on ITV1.)
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 21/03/2025 03:23 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
The "unrealistic expectation" on the part of society that its possible
to solve all crimes is not a "benefit". Precisely the opossite in
fact.
A benefit only accrues when a crime is solved.
In fact confirming that the unrealistic expectation is correct, could
be seen as beneficial to society if it leads to a better allocation
of resources
*Particularly* in "cases where it has proved impossible to discover, apprehend, arrest,
convict and punish the actual culprit"!
Unless you wish to claim that...
It is always possible to to discover, apprehend, arrest, convict
and punish the actual culprit.
So are you claiming that ?
Yes or no ?
Of course not. But at the near margin, the proportion of successful enquiries is
relative to the resources deployed.
Allocate too few and "it will be impossible to discover, apprehend, arrest, convict and
punish the actual culprit".
Of course, that's why very large amounts of said resources are brought into play for a
murder enquiry and relatively few of them for a case of criminal damage to a bank
branch's windows.
But you are getting away from the point. Not identifying and taking appropriate action
against a culprit is always a social disbenefit.
In fact further to what I said above, that is in fact, total baloney.
For anyone, be they a politician, scientist, policeman or whoever to ever claim they can always "guarentee" to estabish tbe absolute truth about anything, other than self evident logical truths etc is a total lie !
So that unless you wish to claim that social cohesion is only possibly
by its adhering to collective delusions encouraged by opportunistic politicians for one, then your claim is total nonsense I'm afraid,
As an example, whoever murdered PC Blakelock (remember him?), for instance, is free to
do it again (if they're still among us, forty years later).
According to you.
However the very fact that you thought you might
need to remind me who he was, as in (remember him), would seen to suggest that "society" as a whole for whom you claim to be speaking, doesn't actually appear to share your concerns. Does it ?
His (I'm assuming a male criminal here) getting away without
proper punishment is a grave injustice and disbenefit to society. There are, as you
know, a huge number of unsolved crimes. Not to[o] many murders, as a proportion, but
one unsolved murder is one too many.
On 23/03/2025 03:21, JNugent wrote:
On 22/03/2025 08:03 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Mar 2025 at 14:34:29 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
But you are getting away from the point. Not identifying and taking
appropriate action against a culprit is always a social disbenefit.
As an example, whoever murdered PC Blakelock (remember him?), for
instance, is free to do it again (if they're still among us, forty
years later). His (I'm assuming a male criminal here) getting away
without proper punishment is a grave injustice and disbenefit to
society. There are, as you know, a huge number of unsolved crimes.
Not to[o] many murders, as a proportion, but one unsolved murder is
one too many.
The Blakelock murder led to one of the lowest points to which the
English criminal justice system has ever sunk when they charged a
black child who happened to be part of the crowd of people
surrounding Blakelock with joint enterprise murder.
That does illustrate how strongly people felt about finding a
scapegoat, if not the actual murderer(s).
"...a black child who happened to be part of the crowd of people..."
(Also, "...children as young as...".)
If you are of the opinion that a child should never be charged even
when the evidence links them to the crime, I urge you not to express
that view anywhere within earshot of the mother of James Bulger.
Only since we seem to be living in a society ruled by the parents of
dead children. (What kind of -ocracy is that? Latin/Greek scholars
please reply.)
Lately they all want our (and our teenagers') freedoms to be curtailed,
with, among other measures, calls to ban/restrict access to smart phones/social media. (Brianna Ghey's mother is having another go this Thursday on ITV1.)
On 24/03/2025 11:42 AM, Max Demian wrote:
On 23/03/2025 03:21, JNugent wrote:
If you are of the opinion that a child should never be charged even
when the evidence links them to the crime, I urge you not to express
that view anywhere within earshot of the mother of James Bulger.
Only since we seem to be living in a society ruled by the parents of
dead children. (What kind of -ocracy is that? Latin/Greek scholars
please reply.)
An AI searchengine suggests:
"Paidophonokratia"
QUOTE:
For a society where the ruling class consists of the parents of murdered children, we aim to weave together these ideas:
Parents: γονείς (goneis) or πατέρας (pateras, meaning fathers) and
μητέρες (miteres, meaning mothers). A broader term might be γονευτές
(goneutes), implying "progenitors."
Murdered Children: Combining παιδί (paidi, singular for child) or παιδιά
(paidia, children) with φόνος (phonos, murder). A term like παιδοφόνος
(paidophonos, child-murder) or παιδοφονία (paidophonia, child-murdering
event) could fit.
Rule/Power: κράτος (kratos) for rule, or αρχία (archia) for governance.
We could propose "Goneophonarchia" (Γονοφωναρχία), blending "goneis" (parents), "phonos" (murder), and "archia" (governance) for a
poetic take. Alternatively, "Paidophonokratia" (Παιδοφονοκρατία), as
mentioned earlier, remains strong.
This refined linguistic structure should embody the essence of your
concept.
ENDQUOTE
Lately they all want our (and our teenagers') freedoms to be curtailed,
with, among other measures, calls to ban/restrict access to smart
phones/social media. (Brianna Ghey's mother is having another go this
Thursday on ITV1.)
I think it's a bit much to attack bereaved parents. They are lost. They
are well aware that nothing can be done to address the outrage of child murder (short of adopting an adequate punishment for it, which European governments are determined never to do) but no doubt feel obliged to be doing, or saying, something.
On 24/03/2025 13:47, JNugent wrote:
On 24/03/2025 11:42 AM, Max Demian wrote:
On 23/03/2025 03:21, JNugent wrote:
If you are of the opinion that a child should never be charged even
when the evidence links them to the crime, I urge you not to express
that view anywhere within earshot of the mother of James Bulger.
Only since we seem to be living in a society ruled by the parents of
dead children. (What kind of -ocracy is that? Latin/Greek scholars
please reply.)
An AI searchengine suggests:
"Paidophonokratia"
QUOTE:
For a society where the ruling class consists of the parents of
murdered children, we aim to weave together these ideas:
Parents: γονείς (goneis) or πατέρας (pateras, meaning fathers) and
μητέρες (miteres, meaning mothers). A broader term might be γονευτές
(goneutes), implying "progenitors."
Murdered Children: Combining παιδί (paidi, singular for child) or
παιδιά (paidia, children) with φόνος (phonos, murder). A term like
παιδοφόνος (paidophonos, child-murder) or παιδοφονία (paidophonia,
child-murdering event) could fit.
Rule/Power: κράτος (kratos) for rule, or αρχία (archia) for governance.
We could propose "Goneophonarchia" (Γονοφωναρχία), blending "goneis"
(parents), "phonos" (murder), and "archia" (governance) for a poetic
take. Alternatively, "Paidophonokratia" (Παιδοφονοκρατία), as >> mentioned earlier, remains strong.
This refined linguistic structure should embody the essence of your
concept.
ENDQUOTE
Amusing.
Lately they all want our (and our teenagers') freedoms to be curtailed,
with, among other measures, calls to ban/restrict access to smart
phones/social media. (Brianna Ghey's mother is having another go this
Thursday on ITV1.)
I think it's a bit much to attack bereaved parents. They are lost.
They are well aware that nothing can be done to address the outrage of
child murder (short of adopting an adequate punishment for it, which
European governments are determined never to do) but no doubt feel
obliged to be doing, or saying, something.
Bereaved parents shouldn't be allowed to persuade legislators to
introduce new laws, often informally named after their dead offspring.
On 23/03/2025 22:53, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-23, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 23/03/2025 17:58, Jon Ribbens wrote:As I said, I already did, in December 2015. You can go back and read it
On 2025-03-23, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
On 23/03/2025 08:27, Handsome Jack wrote:
out. Why should anyone not want to give their side of the story if they
are in fact innocent?
There are many reasons, most of them explained at length here in previous
threads. For example, there are many situations in which there is nothing
you can say to prove your innocence; whereas there are many things you can
say that might be twisted to suggest your guilt.
Surely, everyone has seen this video, which explains it fully?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
Whilst I entirely agree with Norman that an innocent person would *want* >>>>> to give their side of the story, it is absolutely essential that they >>>>> don't. >
Sadly, Norman refused to watch that educational video when it was
discussed in The Other Place in December 2015. It probably wouldn't have >>>> helped him though, since he didn't seem to understand the arguments in it >>>> when they were explained to him.
I'm sure you can summarise the key points, if any, including why you
think a video from the USA is actually relevant under our judicial system. >>
again if you like - maybe you'll get the point a second time around.
No, I don't think I'll bother.
On 24/03/2025 13:47, JNugent wrote:
On 24/03/2025 11:42 AM, Max Demian wrote:
On 23/03/2025 03:21, JNugent wrote:
If you are of the opinion that a child should never be charged even
when the evidence links them to the crime, I urge you not to express
that view anywhere within earshot of the mother of James Bulger.
Only since we seem to be living in a society ruled by the parents of
dead children. (What kind of -ocracy is that? Latin/Greek scholars
please reply.)
An AI searchengine suggests:
"Paidophonokratia"
QUOTE:
For a society where the ruling class consists of the parents of murdered
children, we aim to weave together these ideas:
Parents: γονείς (goneis) or πατέρας (pateras, meaning fathers) and
μητέρες (miteres, meaning mothers). A broader term might be γονευτές
(goneutes), implying "progenitors."
Murdered Children: Combining παιδί (paidi, singular for child) or παιδιά
(paidia, children) with φόνος (phonos, murder). A term like παιδοφόνος
(paidophonos, child-murder) or παιδοφονία (paidophonia, child-murdering
event) could fit.
Rule/Power: κράτος (kratos) for rule, or αρχία (archia) for governance.
We could propose "Goneophonarchia" (Γονοφωναρχία), blending
"goneis" (parents), "phonos" (murder), and "archia" (governance) for a
poetic take. Alternatively, "Paidophonokratia" (Παιδοφονοκρατία), as
mentioned earlier, remains strong.
This refined linguistic structure should embody the essence of your
concept.
ENDQUOTE
Amusing.
Lately they all want our (and our teenagers') freedoms to be curtailed,
with, among other measures, calls to ban/restrict access to smart
phones/social media. (Brianna Ghey's mother is having another go this
Thursday on ITV1.)
I think it's a bit much to attack bereaved parents. They are lost. They
are well aware that nothing can be done to address the outrage of child
murder (short of adopting an adequate punishment for it, which European
governments are determined never to do) but no doubt feel obliged to be
doing, or saying, something.
Bereaved parents shouldn't be allowed to persuade legislators to
introduce new laws, often informally named after their dead offspring.
On 22/03/2025 12:21 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-22, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote
[ ... ]
I have no idea what you are asking me to agree with or why.
For the final time of asking, what on earth are you on about?
If you have a point to make, make it.
Why do you think Auriol Gray "doesn't deserve" compensation ?
Because of what I saw on the video that featured the interaction between
her and the deceased cyclist, and the fact that the jury decided it was
not an accident.
Did anyone here ever say it was an accident?
It arose out of a clear breach of the law which protects pedestrians on pedestrian-only *foot*ways. That wasn't accidental.
On 23/03/2025 23:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
Endlessly repeating your opinion does not make it any more likely to
be valid.
At least I've told you why I hold the opinion I do. Which seems fairly unique here.
On 23/03/2025 23:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/03/2025 22:53, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-23, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 23/03/2025 17:58, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-23, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
On 23/03/2025 08:27, Handsome Jack wrote:
out. Why should anyone not want to give their side of the story >>>>>>>> if they
are in fact innocent?
There are many reasons, most of them explained at length here in >>>>>>> previous
threads. For example, there are many situations in which there is >>>>>>> nothing
you can say to prove your innocence; whereas there are many things >>>>>>> you can
say that might be twisted to suggest your guilt.
Surely, everyone has seen this video, which explains it fully?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
Whilst I entirely agree with Norman that an innocent person would
*want*
to give their side of the story, it is absolutely essential that they >>>>>> don't. >
Sadly, Norman refused to watch that educational video when it was
discussed in The Other Place in December 2015. It probably wouldn't
have
helped him though, since he didn't seem to understand the arguments
in it
when they were explained to him.
I'm sure you can summarise the key points, if any, including why you
think a video from the USA is actually relevant under our judicial
system.
As I said, I already did, in December 2015. You can go back and read it
again if you like - maybe you'll get the point a second time around.
No, I don't think I'll bother.
It's a pity that you are not willing to educate yourself, but I'm sure
that other readers of the group will greatly benefit from watching the
video, which is certainly relevant to UK criminal law as much as it is
to US law. Meanwhile of course you can consult the wisdom of your
omniscient gut.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
On 22/03/2025 14:37, JNugent wrote:
On 22/03/2025 12:21 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:That wasn't relevant to the determination of the defendant's guilt, though.
On 2025-03-22, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote
[ ... ]
I have no idea what you are asking me to agree with or why.
For the final time of asking, what on earth are you on about?
If you have a point to make, make it.
Why do you think Auriol Gray "doesn't deserve" compensation ?
Because of what I saw on the video that featured the interaction between >>> her and the deceased cyclist, and the fact that the jury decided it was
not an accident.
Did anyone here ever say it was an accident?
It arose out of a clear breach of the law which protects pedestrians
on pedestrian-only *foot*ways. That wasn't accidental.
If you're a pedestrian and you threaten a cyclist approaching on the
pavement with violence, and that causes the cyclist to wobble off into
the road, then you can be guilty of assault or in some cases, manslaughter.
On 21/03/2025 11:41 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m42oguFqceoU1@mid.individual.net...
On 20/03/2025 08:30 AM, The Todal wrote:
Did you read the sentence immediately after the one containing that phrase?
If relatives of the victim(s) believe the real culprit has been
convicted and punished
then the desire for retribution will have been satisfied. If other
potential criminals
are deterred by the fact that a culprit has been convicted and
punished, then the
requirement for deterrence will have been served. The rest of the
public, society
as a whole, except for the actual criminal etc., will believe that
the real culprit
has been convicted and punished and so can maintain the "necessary
illusion" that
the Criminal Justice System works exactly as planned.
A "necessary illusion", eh?
What one perceives in an illusion is... erm... illusionary.
The real culprit is free to offend again. That's the disbenefit.
Which happens to be directly contrary to the fact that its clearly
impossible to
identify, arrest, try, convict and punish the real perpetrators of a
sizeable
percentage of actual crimes, in the first place.
And?
Does that make it alright to pick the first greasy-looking candidate on
the street and process them as though they're guilty?
It's imagining otherwise which is the "disbelief".
On 23/03/2025 23:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/03/2025 22:53, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-23, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 23/03/2025 17:58, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-23, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
On 23/03/2025 08:27, Handsome Jack wrote:
out. Why should anyone not want to give their side of the story >>>>>>>> if they
are in fact innocent?
There are many reasons, most of them explained at length here in >>>>>>> previous
threads. For example, there are many situations in which there is >>>>>>> nothing
you can say to prove your innocence; whereas there are many
things you can
say that might be twisted to suggest your guilt.
Surely, everyone has seen this video, which explains it fully?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
Whilst I entirely agree with Norman that an innocent person would
*want*
to give their side of the story, it is absolutely essential that they >>>>>> don't. >
Sadly, Norman refused to watch that educational video when it was
discussed in The Other Place in December 2015. It probably wouldn't
have
helped him though, since he didn't seem to understand the arguments
in it
when they were explained to him.
I'm sure you can summarise the key points, if any, including why you
think a video from the USA is actually relevant under our judicial
system.
As I said, I already did, in December 2015. You can go back and read it
again if you like - maybe you'll get the point a second time around.
No, I don't think I'll bother.
It's a pity that you are not willing to educate yourself, but I'm sure
that other readers of the group will greatly benefit from watching the
video, which is certainly relevant to UK criminal law as much as it is
to US law. Meanwhile of course you can consult the wisdom of your
omniscient gut.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
On 23/03/2025 23:12, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/03/2025 23:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
Endlessly repeating your opinion does not make it any more likely to
be valid.
At least I've told you why I hold the opinion I do. Which seems
fairly unique here.
And that's your clue.
On 24/03/2025 18:24, The Todal wrote:
On 23/03/2025 23:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/03/2025 22:53, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-23, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 23/03/2025 17:58, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-23, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
On 23/03/2025 08:27, Handsome Jack wrote:
out. Why should anyone not want to give their side of the
story if they
are in fact innocent?
There are many reasons, most of them explained at length here in >>>>>>>> previous
threads. For example, there are many situations in which there >>>>>>>> is nothing
you can say to prove your innocence; whereas there are many
things you can
say that might be twisted to suggest your guilt.
Surely, everyone has seen this video, which explains it fully?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
Whilst I entirely agree with Norman that an innocent person would >>>>>>> *want*
to give their side of the story, it is absolutely essential that >>>>>>> they
don't. >
Sadly, Norman refused to watch that educational video when it was
discussed in The Other Place in December 2015. It probably
wouldn't have
helped him though, since he didn't seem to understand the
arguments in it
when they were explained to him.
I'm sure you can summarise the key points, if any, including why you >>>>> think a video from the USA is actually relevant under our judicial
system.
As I said, I already did, in December 2015. You can go back and read it >>>> again if you like - maybe you'll get the point a second time around.
No, I don't think I'll bother.
It's a pity that you are not willing to educate yourself, but I'm sure
that other readers of the group will greatly benefit from watching the
video, which is certainly relevant to UK criminal law as much as it is
to US law. Meanwhile of course you can consult the wisdom of your
omniscient gut.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
I did start to watch it to see if it might have something interesting to
say, but the first couple of minutes put me right off. It's a fast-
talking American who alienates me, citing provisions of their
Constitution which we don't have, quoting their laws that we don't have,
and referencing their judicial system which we don't have. I don't feel inclined to sit through three quarters of an hour of such irrelevance.
Bereaved parents shouldn't be allowed to persuade legislators to
introduce new laws, often informally named after their dead offspring.
Is that what you meant, or do you rather propose a measure designed to prevent legislators acting positively to the pleas and blandishments of
the bereaved parents of murdered children?
It's hard to see what sort of practical legislation could prevent
bereaved parents from pressing their POV.
On 24/03/2025 18:44, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/03/2025 18:24, The Todal wrote:
On 23/03/2025 23:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/03/2025 22:53, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-23, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 23/03/2025 17:58, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-23, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
On 23/03/2025 08:27, Handsome Jack wrote:
out. Why should anyone not want to give their side of the >>>>>>>>>> story if they
are in fact innocent?
There are many reasons, most of them explained at length here >>>>>>>>> in previous
threads. For example, there are many situations in which there >>>>>>>>> is nothing
you can say to prove your innocence; whereas there are many
things you can
say that might be twisted to suggest your guilt.
Surely, everyone has seen this video, which explains it fully? >>>>>>>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
Whilst I entirely agree with Norman that an innocent person
would *want*
to give their side of the story, it is absolutely essential that >>>>>>>> they
don't. >
Sadly, Norman refused to watch that educational video when it was >>>>>>> discussed in The Other Place in December 2015. It probably
wouldn't have
helped him though, since he didn't seem to understand the
arguments in it
when they were explained to him.
I'm sure you can summarise the key points, if any, including why you >>>>>> think a video from the USA is actually relevant under our judicial >>>>>> system.
As I said, I already did, in December 2015. You can go back and
read it
again if you like - maybe you'll get the point a second time around.
No, I don't think I'll bother.
It's a pity that you are not willing to educate yourself, but I'm
sure that other readers of the group will greatly benefit from
watching the video, which is certainly relevant to UK criminal law as
much as it is to US law. Meanwhile of course you can consult the
wisdom of your omniscient gut.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
I did start to watch it to see if it might have something interesting
to say, but the first couple of minutes put me right off. It's a
fast- talking American who alienates me, citing provisions of their
Constitution which we don't have, quoting their laws that we don't
have, and referencing their judicial system which we don't have. I
don't feel inclined to sit through three quarters of an hour of such
irrelevance.
Oh, I totally understand. But just to clarify - if you were being questioned by the police, would you answer each and every question as truthfully as you possibly could, omitting no detail that might help
them build their case against you, confident that they would quickly recognise you as a law abiding citizen who is incapable of any serious wrongdoing?
If so, maybe for the benefit of others you could outline what it is
about you that others might emulate, to satisfy the police that they
have nothing to charge you with. Maybe you have in mind some useful
phrases? "Really, officer, you're making a mistake" or "Can I speak to
your senior office please?"
On 22/03/2025 14:37, JNugent wrote:
On 22/03/2025 12:21 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-22, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote
[ ... ]
I have no idea what you are asking me to agree with or why.
For the final time of asking, what on earth are you on about?
If you have a point to make, make it.
Why do you think Auriol Gray "doesn't deserve" compensation ?
Because of what I saw on the video that featured the interaction between >>> her and the deceased cyclist, and the fact that the jury decided it was
not an accident.
Did anyone here ever say it was an accident?
It arose out of a clear breach of the law which protects pedestrians
on pedestrian-only *foot*ways. That wasn't accidental.
That wasn't relevant to the determination of the defendant's guilt, though.
If you're a pedestrian and you threaten a cyclist approaching on the
pavement with violence, and that causes the cyclist to wobble off into
the road, then you can be guilty of assault or in some cases, manslaughter.
On 3/24/25 17:33, JNugent wrote:
Bereaved parents shouldn't be allowed to persuade legislators to
introduce new laws, often informally named after their dead offspring.
Is that what you meant, or do you rather propose a measure designed to
prevent legislators acting positively to the pleas and blandishments
of the bereaved parents of murdered children?
It's hard to see what sort of practical legislation could prevent
bereaved parents from pressing their POV.
I think he meant legislators should not allow themselves to be
persuaded, or perhaps more accurately should not appear to be persuaded
for electoral advantage.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_cases_make_bad_law>
i.e. the law should dispassionately balance the disadvantage to the many against any advantage in the exceptional cases it is designed to help.
On 21/03/2025 14:11, JNugent wrote:
On 21/03/2025 11:41 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 20/03/2025 08:30 AM, The Todal wrote:
Did you read the sentence immediately after the one containing that
phrase?
If relatives of the victim(s) believe the real culprit has been
convicted and punished then the desire for retribution will have
been satisfied. If other potential criminals are deterred by the
fact that a culprit has been convicted and punished, then the
requirement for deterrence will have been served. The rest of the
public, society as a whole, except for the actual criminal etc.,
will believe that the real culprit has been convicted and punished
and so can maintain the "necessary illusion" that the Criminal
Justice System works exactly as planned.
A "necessary illusion", eh?
What one perceives in an illusion is... erm... illusionary.
The real culprit is free to offend again. That's the disbenefit.
Which happens to be directly contrary to the fact that its clearly
impossible to identify, arrest, try, convict and punish the real
perpetrators of a sizeable percentage of actual crimes, in the
first place.
And?
Does that make it alright to pick the first greasy-looking candidate
on the street and process them as though they're guilty?
It's imagining otherwise which is the "disbelief".
Snipped, possibly attributing words to the wrong people.
I don't believe that "greasy-looking" is a demographic that the police
ever focus on, but being black, young and driving a car that seems to be worth more than the officer's own Vauxhall Astra, would tend to cause
police to target that person.
But there are of course many unsolved crimes and the police claim to
have limited resources.
Consider the death of Mark Blanco. Most people won't have heard of him.
quote from Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Doherty
In December 2006, actor and magician Mark Blanco died after falling from
the first-floor balcony of a flat in Whitechapel belonging to Doherty's friend and literary agent Paul Roundhill, during a party at which
Doherty was present. After an altercation, Roundhill set Blanco's hat
alight, punched him and evicted him from the flat. Blanco returned to
the flat and was shown on CCTV falling to his death less than a minute
later. After initial police investigations concluded there were no
suspicious circumstances surrounding Blanco's death, a coroner's inquest
in October 2007 recorded an open verdict and requested that police
reopen the investigation. Doherty's bodyguard at the time, Jonathan Jeannevol, revealed he had confessed to police that he pushed Blanco to
his death after Doherty had asked Jeannevol to 'have a word' with him; Jeannevol later retracted his confession.
unquote
Blanco's mother has been desperately pleading for a proper investigation
and for the witneses to be interviewed, but despite several sympathetic documentaries it hasn't grabbed the public's attention and it is
unlikely that anything will ever happen.
On 24 Mar 2025 at 17:03:39 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
Bereaved parents shouldn't be allowed to persuade legislators to
introduce new laws, often informally named after their dead offspring.
I must say the two eponymous laws allowing women intending to enter a relationship with a man to find out from the local police if they have a history of domestic violence or child abuse seem fair enough; certainly less oppressive than the American policy of publishing everyone's criminal record, no matter how minor, on the Internet.
On 23/03/2025 06:34 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
As an example, whoever murdered PC Blakelock (remember him?), for instance, is free
do it again (if they're still among us, forty years later).
You think that "society" is not bothered by unsolved brutal murders?
You'll have to justify that.
Or it might be: "we've heard that three years ago you had an argument
with the victim, you shouted at him, you nearly came to blows, you used
the words "I won't ever forget this". Do you agree that happened"
"Yes, that did happen but I think we got along fine with each other after that".
"Sarge, that's the final piece of our case! Well done! Let's now go to
CPS for their decision".
On 24/03/2025 20:07, The Todal wrote:
Oh, I totally understand. But just to clarify - if you were being
questioned by the police, would you answer each and every question as
truthfully as you possibly could, omitting no detail that might help
them build their case against you, confident that they would quickly
recognise you as a law abiding citizen who is incapable of any serious
wrongdoing?
It a great advantage to someone who is a suspect that he knows exactly
what, if any, involvement he had in the incident under investigation,
whereas the Police don't.
If he's actually guilty he may see some advantage in saying nothing,
though going no comment to the police is like a red rag to a bull.
On 25/03/2025 09:15 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m4d2gqFf6m1U1@mid.individual.net...
On 23/03/2025 06:34 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Ruthless snippage
As an example, whoever murdered PC Blakelock (remember him?), for
instance, is free
do it again (if they're still among us, forty years later).
You think that "society" is not bothered by unsolved brutal murders?
You'll have to justify that.
Surely the very fact that the best example you yourself could come up
with, despite all your concerns, is from *forty years ago*
speaks for itself ?
That was almost certainly far from being the best or worst example that
could have been adduced. It was simply the one that came to mind.
Along with the implication that I myself like most other people
had probably forgotten all about him, until reminded by you.
As in "remember him ?"
Did you remember him?
Some people certainly do but dismiss the case because he was a police
officer and they're insinctively on the side of the murder(s).
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:m4d2gqFf6m1U1@mid.individual.net...
On 23/03/2025 06:34 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Ruthless snippage
As an example, whoever murdered PC Blakelock (remember him?), for instance, is free
do it again (if they're still among us, forty years later).
You think that "society" is not bothered by unsolved brutal murders?
You'll have to justify that.
Surely the very fact that the best example you yourself could come up
with, despite all your concerns, is from *forty years ago*
speaks for itself ?
Along with the implication that I myself like most other people
had probably forgotten all about him, until reminded by you.
As in "remember him ?"
None of which would appear to support your claim that the public
is unduly bothered by unsolved brutal murders.
In fact, this month, I think you'll find, they'll mostly bothered
about increases in electricity, gas and Council Tax bills.*
On 25/03/2025 02:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 25 Mar 2025 at 13:17:22 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 25/03/2025 09:15 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m4d2gqFf6m1U1@mid.individual.net...
On 23/03/2025 06:34 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Ruthless snippage
As an example, whoever murdered PC Blakelock (remember him?), for >>>>>>> instance, is free
do it again (if they're still among us, forty years later).
You think that "society" is not bothered by unsolved brutal murders? >>>>> You'll have to justify that.
Surely the very fact that the best example you yourself could come up
with, despite all your concerns, is from *forty years ago*
speaks for itself ?
That was almost certainly far from being the best or worst example that
could have been adduced. It was simply the one that came to mind.
Along with the implication that I myself like most other people
had probably forgotten all about him, until reminded by you.
As in "remember him ?"
Did you remember him?
Some people certainly do but dismiss the case because he was a police
officer and they're insinctively on the side of the murder(s).
I don't think you'll find many here who are on the side of brutal and cowardly
murderers. On the other hand, the elite corps of hundreds of excited police in
riot gear who invaded the estate, no doubt for the best of reasons, and
nothing to do with racism, must bear a heavy responsibility for the fate of >> P.C. Blakelock, who was obviously happy to enter the estate on a normal day >> without a mob in riot gear to support him, but was not warned about what his >> colleagues planned. Obviously the murderer(s) are responsible for the crime, >> but it was at the very least reckless incompetence that left him vulnerable.
Thanks for the prompt confirmation.
You could not have made you viewpoint any clearer.
"He was asking for it", eh?
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 23:09:07 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 24/03/2025 20:07, The Todal wrote:
Oh, I totally understand. But just to clarify - if you were being
questioned by the police, would you answer each and every question as
truthfully as you possibly could, omitting no detail that might help
them build their case against you, confident that they would quickly
recognise you as a law abiding citizen who is incapable of any serious
wrongdoing?
It a great advantage to someone who is a suspect that he knows exactly
what, if any, involvement he had in the incident under investigation,
whereas the Police don't.
But the suspect doesn't necessarily know whether his involvement, such as it was, constituted a crime. Sometimes, the difference between guilt and innocence isn't in your actions, it's in your intentions. Sometimes, you can't always be sure whether something was a crime or not without the
benefit of legal advice.
In those cases, saying the wrong thing may inadvertently give the police the wrong impression of your intentions. If someone accuses you of rape, for example, the police ask "did you have sex with her?", and you reply "yes,
and I regret it now, I shouldn't have done it", that may be absolutely true from your perspective. But it may not help your case when what you really need to establish is that the encounter was fully consensual at the time
and any post-hoc regrets are more to do with berating yourself for succumbing to
temptation rather than contrition for an abusive act. So declining to answer questions, at least until you've had the benefit of professional advice, would be a very sensible move.
Similarly, if you were accused of theft, it would be a relatively simple response if you did not, in fact, appropriate the item (eg, if you can demonstrate that you never had the item in your possession, and especially
if you can demonstrate that you never even had the opportunity to
appropriate it), and in that case saying so up front is probably the best option. But if you did appropriate it, and your defence is either that your intentions were not dishonest or that you you had no intent to permanently deprive, then getting advice before saying anything is sensible.
Because you can't un-say what you've said, and later attempts to "clarify" potentially incriminating statements are equally likely to arouse suspicion in the investigating officers. Particularly when your defence is one of intent rather than action (eg, the sex was consensual, the appropriation was not dishonhest) then the precise words you use will be very important. You may possibly be able to dig yourself out of a hole that you've landed yourself in, but you may not. So it's always best to avoid digging the hole in the first place.
If he's actually guilty he may see some advantage in saying nothing,
though going no comment to the police is like a red rag to a bull.
On the contrary, the police are very aware that people will often want to take their time and give careful thought before responding, even if they are innocent.
Particularly in circumstances where the case hinges on intent
rather than actions.
On 25 Mar 2025 at 13:17:22 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 25/03/2025 09:15 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m4d2gqFf6m1U1@mid.individual.net...
On 23/03/2025 06:34 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Ruthless snippage
As an example, whoever murdered PC Blakelock (remember him?), for
instance, is free
do it again (if they're still among us, forty years later).
You think that "society" is not bothered by unsolved brutal murders?
You'll have to justify that.
Surely the very fact that the best example you yourself could come up
with, despite all your concerns, is from *forty years ago*
speaks for itself ?
That was almost certainly far from being the best or worst example that
could have been adduced. It was simply the one that came to mind.
Along with the implication that I myself like most other people
had probably forgotten all about him, until reminded by you.
As in "remember him ?"
Did you remember him?
Some people certainly do but dismiss the case because he was a police
officer and they're insinctively on the side of the murder(s).
I don't think you'll find many here who are on the side of brutal and cowardly
murderers. On the other hand, the elite corps of hundreds of excited police in
riot gear who invaded the estate, no doubt for the best of reasons, and nothing to do with racism, must bear a heavy responsibility for the fate of P.C. Blakelock, who was obviously happy to enter the estate on a normal day without a mob in riot gear to support him, but was not warned about what his colleagues planned. Obviously the murderer(s) are responsible for the crime, but it was at the very least reckless incompetence that left him vulnerable.
On 25 Mar 2025 at 13:17:22 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 25/03/2025 09:15 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m4d2gqFf6m1U1@mid.individual.net...
On 23/03/2025 06:34 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Ruthless snippage
As an example, whoever murdered PC Blakelock (remember him?), for
instance, is free
do it again (if they're still among us, forty years later).
You think that "society" is not bothered by unsolved brutal murders?
You'll have to justify that.
Surely the very fact that the best example you yourself could come up
with, despite all your concerns, is from *forty years ago*
speaks for itself ?
That was almost certainly far from being the best or worst example that
could have been adduced. It was simply the one that came to mind.
Along with the implication that I myself like most other people
had probably forgotten all about him, until reminded by you.
As in "remember him ?"
Did you remember him?
Some people certainly do but dismiss the case because he was a police
officer and they're insinctively on the side of the murder(s).
I don't think you'll find many here who are on the side of brutal and cowardly
murderers. On the other hand, the elite corps of hundreds of excited police in
riot gear who invaded the estate, no doubt for the best of reasons, and nothing to do with racism, must bear a heavy responsibility for the fate of P.C. Blakelock, who was obviously happy to enter the estate on a normal day without a mob in riot gear to support him, but was not warned about what his colleagues planned. Obviously the murderer(s) are responsible for the crime, but it was at the very least reckless incompetence that left him vulnerable.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:...
billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Ruthless snippage
As an example, whoever murdered PC Blakelock (remember him?), for >>>>>>>> instance, is free do it again (if they're still among us, forty >>>>>>>> years later).
You think that "society" is not bothered by unsolved brutal murders? >>>>>> You'll have to justify that.
Surely the very fact that the best example you yourself could come up >>>>> with, despite all your concerns, is from *forty years ago*
speaks for itself ?
That was almost certainly far from being the best or worst example that >>>> could have been adduced. It was simply the one that came to mind.
Along with the implication that I myself like most other people
had probably forgotten all about him, until reminded by you.
As in "remember him ?"
Did you remember him?
Some people certainly do but dismiss the case because he was a police
officer and they're insinctively on the side of the murder(s).
I don't think you'll find many here who are on the side of brutal and cowardly
murderers. On the other hand, the elite corps of hundreds of excited police in
riot gear who invaded the estate, no doubt for the best of reasons, and
nothing to do with racism, must bear a heavy responsibility for the fate of >>> P.C. Blakelock, who was obviously happy to enter the estate on a normal day >>> without a mob in riot gear to support him, but was not warned about what his
colleagues planned. Obviously the murderer(s) are responsible for the crime,
but it was at the very least reckless incompetence that left him vulnerable.
Thanks for the prompt confirmation.
You could not have made you viewpoint any clearer.
"He was asking for it", eh?
That seems to be the very opposite of what I said. He was a community police officer no doubt helping people on the estate, and supplying intelligence to his superiors. He did not need an armed mob to inflame tensions and put him at
risk. Even in the most peaceful and loyal of places there are times and situations where it is not wise for a lone policemen to go in; take the ultra-loyal Southport rioters for instance, a lone policemen would have been unwise to tackle them, despite their obvious extreme patriotism.
On 23/03/2025 16:29, GB wrote:
On 23/03/2025 08:27, Handsome Jack wrote:
out. Why should anyone not want to give their side of the story if
they
are in fact innocent?
There are many reasons, most of them explained at length here in
previous
threads. For example, there are many situations in which there is
nothing
you can say to prove your innocence; whereas there are many things
you can
say that might be twisted to suggest your guilt.
Surely, everyone has seen this video, which explains it fully?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
Whilst I entirely agree with Norman that an innocent person would
*want* to give their side of the story, it is absolutely essential
that they don't. >
Got anything a bit more relevant to UK law?
On 25/03/2025 02:41 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:...
billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Ruthless snippage
As an example, whoever murdered PC Blakelock (remember him?), for >>>>>>>>> instance, is free do it again (if they're still among us, forty >>>>>>>>> years later).
You think that "society" is not bothered by unsolved brutal murders? >>>>>>> You'll have to justify that.
Surely the very fact that the best example you yourself could come up >>>>>> with, despite all your concerns, is from *forty years ago*
speaks for itself ?
That was almost certainly far from being the best or worst example that >>>>> could have been adduced. It was simply the one that came to mind.
Along with the implication that I myself like most other people
had probably forgotten all about him, until reminded by you.
As in "remember him ?"
Did you remember him?
Some people certainly do but dismiss the case because he was a police >>>>> officer and they're insinctively on the side of the murder(s).
I don't think you'll find many here who are on the side of brutal and cowardly
murderers. On the other hand, the elite corps of hundreds of excited police in
riot gear who invaded the estate, no doubt for the best of reasons, and >>>> nothing to do with racism, must bear a heavy responsibility for the fate of
P.C. Blakelock, who was obviously happy to enter the estate on a normal day
without a mob in riot gear to support him, but was not warned about what his
colleagues planned. Obviously the murderer(s) are responsible for the crime,
but it was at the very least reckless incompetence that left him vulnerable.
Thanks for the prompt confirmation.
You could not have made you viewpoint any clearer.
"He was asking for it", eh?
That seems to be the very opposite of what I said. He was a community police >> officer no doubt helping people on the estate, and supplying intelligence to >> his superiors. He did not need an armed mob to inflame tensions and put him at
risk. Even in the most peaceful and loyal of places there are times and
situations where it is not wise for a lone policemen to go in; take the
ultra-loyal Southport rioters for instance, a lone policemen would have been >> unwise to tackle them, despite their obvious extreme patriotism.
Point taken. I'll consequently amend that to "They were asking for it", thereby extending it to the whole of the Metropolitan Police.
I've forgotten the name after all these years, but there was a Labour MP
who agreed with you. He said that the police had been given "a good hiding".
"I was advised not to do so, by my lawyer"
is going to go down well, with a jury ?
On 25/03/2025 09:15 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m4d2gqFf6m1U1@mid.individual.net...
On 23/03/2025 06:34 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Ruthless snippage
As an example, whoever murdered PC Blakelock (remember him?), for instance, is free
do it again (if they're still among us, forty years later).
You think that "society" is not bothered by unsolved brutal murders?
You'll have to justify that.
Surely the very fact that the best example you yourself could come up
with, despite all your concerns, is from *forty years ago*
speaks for itself ?
That was almost certainly far from being the best or worst example that could have been
adduced. It was simply the one that came to mind.
Along with the implication that I myself like most other people
had probably forgotten all about him, until reminded by you.
As in "remember him ?"
Did you remember him?
Some people certainly do but dismiss the case because he was a police officer and
they're insinctively on the side of the murder(s).
On 23/03/2025 20:43, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/03/2025 16:29, GB wrote:
On 23/03/2025 08:27, Handsome Jack wrote:
out. Why should anyone not want to give their side of the story if they >>>>> are in fact innocent?
There are many reasons, most of them explained at length here in previous >>>> threads. For example, there are many situations in which there is nothing >>>> you can say to prove your innocence; whereas there are many things you can >>>> say that might be twisted to suggest your guilt.
Surely, everyone has seen this video, which explains it fully?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
Whilst I entirely agree with Norman that an innocent person would *want* to give
their side of the story, it is absolutely essential that they don't. >
Got anything a bit more relevant to UK law?
I suggest you skip the references to US law. The meat of the video lasts ten minutes.
As an example: Suppose there's a murder in Crewe, and the police interview you. You can
refuse to speak, which leaves the police no better off.
Or, for example, you say that you've never been to Crewe. Then, the police go through
your bank records, and it turns out that 5 years ago you bought a sandwich in the
station buffet at Crewe, whilst waiting to change trains. Of course, that's an honest
mistake. Nevertheless, that's you caught out in a lie, and that's not going to play out
well in court.
On 25/03/2025 09:32, billy bookcase wrote:
<snip>
"I was advised not to do so, by my lawyer"
is going to go down well, with a jury ?
One reason solicitors advise their clients to keep schtum is that neither they or the
client knows the basis of the inquiry.
And the no comment interview is to prevent the police from simply fishing in what would
be a one-sided dialogue.
I don't see why the jury shouldn't accept that the defendant kept to their representative's advice?
On 23/03/2025 20:43, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/03/2025 16:29, GB wrote:
On 23/03/2025 08:27, Handsome Jack wrote:
out. Why should anyone not want to give their side of the story if >>>>> they
are in fact innocent?
There are many reasons, most of them explained at length here in
previous
threads. For example, there are many situations in which there is
nothing
you can say to prove your innocence; whereas there are many things
you can
say that might be twisted to suggest your guilt.
Surely, everyone has seen this video, which explains it fully?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
Whilst I entirely agree with Norman that an innocent person would
*want* to give their side of the story, it is absolutely essential
that they don't. >
Got anything a bit more relevant to UK law?
I suggest you skip the references to US law. The meat of the video lasts
ten minutes.
As an example: Suppose there's a murder in Crewe, and the police
interview you. You can refuse to speak, which leaves the police no
better off.
Or, for example, you say that you've never been to Crewe. Then, the
police go through your bank records, and it turns out that 5 years ago
you bought a sandwich in the station buffet at Crewe, whilst waiting to change trains. Of course, that's an honest mistake. Nevertheless, that's
you caught out in a lie, and that's not going to play out well in court.
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:m44n0nF4m15U3@mid.individual.net...
Or it might be: "we've heard that three years ago you had an argument
with the victim, you shouted at him, you nearly came to blows, you used
the words "I won't ever forget this". Do you agree that happened"
"Yes, that did happen but I think we got along fine with each other after
that".
"Sarge, that's the final piece of our case! Well done! Let's now go to
CPS for their decision".
But Shirley.......
If the suspect says "no comment" at the time of his arrest
Unless he has also been advised not to give evidence in his own defence
Assuming * this argument was known to the police * on the basis of their having credible witnesses
What is there to prevent the prosecution from producing this argument
as evidence along with the alleged threat as supported by witnesses and allowing the jury, as directed by the judge to draw their own inferences ?
Or if the suspect does give evidence in his own defence
What is their answer to the Prosecution's surely inevitable question "
"
"Why did you not mention this, when first questioned, if you had nothing
to hide ?".
Is it really being suggested that
"I was advised not to do so, by my lawyer"
is going to go down well, with a jury ?
"Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote in message news:vrutfk$3tnt3$1@dont-email.me...
On 25/03/2025 09:32, billy bookcase wrote:
<snip>
"I was advised not to do so, by my lawyer"
is going to go down well, with a jury ?
One reason solicitors advise their clients to keep schtum is that neither they or the
client knows the basis of the inquiry.
And the no comment interview is to prevent the police from simply fishing in what would
be a one-sided dialogue.
It's hardly one sided, as the police still need to ask specific questions.
They're hardly going to sit there and ask open ended questions such as
"Now Mr X why not tell us all about yourself ?".
I don't see why the jury shouldn't accept that the defendant kept to their >> representative's advice?
But then it would still be reasonable to ask them "why" exactly they followed their lawyers advice.
"Did your lawyer advise you not to say anything, so as to cover up the truth?"
No.
Isn't it because you knew that if the police found out about this, they might realise straightaway that you were guilty, so you were hoping they wouldn't find out ? (Thus planting a totally spurious inference into the jury's
mind)
No! No, I'm innocent I tell you !
2hrs later
So why didn't you mention it before if you are as innocent as you are claiming?
Etc etc etc,
This is entirely different to the situation in the US; where "pleading the 5th" is a constitutional right. Where people actually have the right to
not incriminate themselves even when everyone suspects they're as
guilty as hell. Just as shooting people is protected by the US
Constitution, so is refusing to answer questions to the police
or in Court.
Also initial silence can be a factor in plea bargaining which applies
to round 80% of guilty verdicts in the US,. Your silence gives your
attorney more scope, when negotiating with the DA prior to the trial.
On 24/03/2025 06:36 PM, The Todal wrote:
What is your point with that?
Blanco's mother has been desperately pleading for a proper investigation
and for the witneses to be interviewed, but despite several sympathetic
documentaries it hasn't grabbed the public's attention and it is
unlikely that anything will ever happen.
According to what you said, the police did investigate and found there
to be no suspicious circumstances.
In what circumstances and to whom was Jeannevol's alleged statement made?
It doesn't sound like the sort of thing anyone would confess to unless
there were some compelling reason to do so.
On 24/03/2025 06:36 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 21/03/2025 14:11, JNugent wrote:
On 21/03/2025 11:41 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 20/03/2025 08:30 AM, The Todal wrote:
Did you read the sentence immediately after the one containing that
phrase?
If relatives of the victim(s) believe the real culprit has been
convicted and punished then the desire for retribution will have
been satisfied. If other potential criminals are deterred by the
fact that a culprit has been convicted and punished, then the
requirement for deterrence will have been served. The rest of the
public, society as a whole, except for the actual criminal etc.,
will believe that the real culprit has been convicted and punished
and so can maintain the "necessary illusion" that the Criminal
Justice System works exactly as planned.
A "necessary illusion", eh?
What one perceives in an illusion is... erm... illusionary.
The real culprit is free to offend again. That's the disbenefit.
Which happens to be directly contrary to the fact that its clearly
impossible to identify, arrest, try, convict and punish the real
perpetrators of a sizeable percentage of actual crimes, in the
first place.
And?
Does that make it alright to pick the first greasy-looking candidate
on the street and process them as though they're guilty?
It's imagining otherwise which is the "disbelief".
Snipped, possibly attributing words to the wrong people.
Seems to be OK AFAICS.
I don't believe that "greasy-looking" is a demographic that the police
ever focus on, but being black, young and driving a car that seems to be
worth more than the officer's own Vauxhall Astra, would tend to cause
police to target that person.
That's an expansive assertion. Especially as you attribute it to all
police officers.
On 26/03/2025 09:04, The Todal wrote:
If the jury is biased against defendants who say "no comment" then
obviously it requires stern guidance from the judge to prevent them
from giving a verdict other than on the evidence.
But Section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 gives
the jury just such a right to be biased.
"2(d) the court or jury, in determining whether the accused is guilty of
the offence charged, may draw such inferences from the failure* as
appear proper".
* the failure to mention when questioned under caution any fact relied
on in his defence being something he could reasonably have been expected
to mention
Your antediluvian position totally ignore this.
If the jury is biased against defendants who say "no comment" then
obviously it requires stern guidance from the judge to prevent them from giving a verdict other than on the evidence.
On 25/03/2025 09:32, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m44n0nF4m15U3@mid.individual.net...
Or it might be: "we've heard that three years ago you had an argument
with the victim, you shouted at him, you nearly came to blows, you used
the words "I won't ever forget this". Do you agree that happened"
"Yes, that did happen but I think we got along fine with each other after >>> that".
"Sarge, that's the final piece of our case! Well done! Let's now go to
CPS for their decision".
But Shirley.......
If the suspect says "no comment" at the time of his arrest
Unless he has also been advised not to give evidence in his own defence
Assuming * this argument was known to the police * on the basis of their
having credible witnesses
What is there to prevent the prosecution from producing this argument
as evidence along with the alleged threat as supported by witnesses and
allowing the jury, as directed by the judge to draw their own inferences ?
They can of course try to produce a witness to the argument between the accused and the
victim and see if the evidence is strong enough to convince a court. Without that
evidence the case on motive might seem extremely thin. Why help the police? Their
witness might be vague and uncertain and might have only heard the tail end of a
conversatin.
The accused won't be prejudiced if he says "no comment" because he isn't failing to
mention something which he later relies on in court.
Or if the suspect does give evidence in his own defence
What is their answer to the Prosecution's surely inevitable question "
"
"Why did you not mention this, when first questioned, if you had nothing
to hide ?".
Mention what? That's the point.
Mentioning that you engaged in conduct which could be construed as an assault three
years ago is definitely not something you would later rely on in court.
On 26/03/2025 10:10, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/03/2025 09:04, The Todal wrote:
If the jury is biased against defendants who say "no comment" then
obviously it requires stern guidance from the judge to prevent them
from giving a verdict other than on the evidence.
But Section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 gives
the jury just such a right to be biased.
"2(d) the court or jury, in determining whether the accused is guilty
of the offence charged, may draw such inferences from the failure* as
appear proper".
* the failure to mention when questioned under caution any fact relied
on in his defence being something he could reasonably have been
expected to mention
Your antediluvian position totally ignores this.
Yet another instance of "a little learning is a dangerous thing". You
need to think harder about the words "as appear proper".
A juror who says "no comment in any of the interviews tells me he must
be guilty" is plainly exhibiting bias and if that was your attitude you
would be a rubbish juror. In fact, I'd pass a note to the judge to tell
him to reprimand you.
A juror who says "he said no comment but he now says it was usual for
all employees to take out of date food from the store room - he could
have said that at the interview" is making a reasonable point.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:m4fon3FsdtjU1@mid.individual.net...
On 25/03/2025 09:15 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m4d2gqFf6m1U1@mid.individual.net...
On 23/03/2025 06:34 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Ruthless snippage
As an example, whoever murdered PC Blakelock (remember him?), for instance, is free
do it again (if they're still among us, forty years later).
You think that "society" is not bothered by unsolved brutal murders?
You'll have to justify that.
Surely the very fact that the best example you yourself could come up
with, despite all your concerns, is from *forty years ago*
speaks for itself ?
That was almost certainly far from being the best or worst example that could have been
adduced. It was simply the one that came to mind.
Along with the implication that I myself like most other people
had probably forgotten all about him, until reminded by you.
As in "remember him ?"
Did you remember him?
Some people certainly do but dismiss the case because he was a police officer and
they're insinctively on the side of the murder(s).
So in that order to support your contention that society *do* bother
about unsolved murders the only example that immediately sprung to mind
was of a murder which occured 40 years ago. But which you are *now* claiming is only mainly remebered by people who never considered it to be murder
in the first place,
You do see the problem here, I take it ?
On 25 Mar 2025 at 15:26:30 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 25/03/2025 02:41 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:...
billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Ruthless snippage
As an example, whoever murdered PC Blakelock (remember him?), for >>>>>>>>>> instance, is free do it again (if they're still among us, forty >>>>>>>>>> years later).
You think that "society" is not bothered by unsolved brutal murders? >>>>>>>> You'll have to justify that.
Surely the very fact that the best example you yourself could come up >>>>>>> with, despite all your concerns, is from *forty years ago*
speaks for itself ?
That was almost certainly far from being the best or worst example that >>>>>> could have been adduced. It was simply the one that came to mind.
Along with the implication that I myself like most other people
had probably forgotten all about him, until reminded by you.
As in "remember him ?"
Did you remember him?
Some people certainly do but dismiss the case because he was a police >>>>>> officer and they're insinctively on the side of the murder(s).
I don't think you'll find many here who are on the side of brutal and cowardly
murderers. On the other hand, the elite corps of hundreds of excited police in
riot gear who invaded the estate, no doubt for the best of reasons, and >>>>> nothing to do with racism, must bear a heavy responsibility for the fate of
P.C. Blakelock, who was obviously happy to enter the estate on a normal day
without a mob in riot gear to support him, but was not warned about what his
colleagues planned. Obviously the murderer(s) are responsible for the crime,
but it was at the very least reckless incompetence that left him vulnerable.
Thanks for the prompt confirmation.
You could not have made you viewpoint any clearer.
"He was asking for it", eh?
That seems to be the very opposite of what I said. He was a community police
officer no doubt helping people on the estate, and supplying intelligence to
his superiors. He did not need an armed mob to inflame tensions and put him at
risk. Even in the most peaceful and loyal of places there are times and
situations where it is not wise for a lone policemen to go in; take the
ultra-loyal Southport rioters for instance, a lone policemen would have been
unwise to tackle them, despite their obvious extreme patriotism.
Point taken. I'll consequently amend that to "They were asking for it",
thereby extending it to the whole of the Metropolitan Police.
I've forgotten the name after all these years, but there was a Labour MP
who agreed with you. He said that the police had been given "a good hiding".
Why do you tell a complete untruth about what I just said? This habit makes me
very reluctant to attempt to discuss anything with you.
On 25/03/2025 01:36, JNugent wrote:
On 24/03/2025 06:36 PM, The Todal wrote:
Blanco's mother has been desperately pleading for a proper investigation >>> and for the witneses to be interviewed, but despite several sympathetic
documentaries it hasn't grabbed the public's attention and it is
unlikely that anything will ever happen.
What is your point with that?
According to what you said, the police did investigate and found there
to be no suspicious circumstances.
The police carried out an incompetent investigation and despite being
told by the coroner to have another go, have failed to do so.
In what circumstances and to whom was Jeannevol's alleged statement made?
It doesn't sound like the sort of thing anyone would confess to unless
there were some compelling reason to do so.
On 25/03/2025 09:32, billy bookcase wrote:
<snip>
"I was advised not to do so, by my lawyer"
is going to go down well, with a jury ?
One reason solicitors advise their clients to keep schtum is that
neither they or the client knows the basis of the inquiry.
And the no comment interview is to prevent the police from simply
fishing in what would be a one-sided dialogue.
I don't see why the jury shouldn't accept that the defendant kept to
their representative's advice?
On 26/03/2025 10:35, The Todal wrote:
On 26/03/2025 10:10, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/03/2025 09:04, The Todal wrote:
If the jury is biased against defendants who say "no comment" then
obviously it requires stern guidance from the judge to prevent them
from giving a verdict other than on the evidence.
But Section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
gives the jury just such a right to be biased.
"2(d) the court or jury, in determining whether the accused is guilty
of the offence charged, may draw such inferences from the failure* as
appear proper".
* the failure to mention when questioned under caution any fact
relied on in his defence being something he could reasonably have
been expected to mention
Your antediluvian position totally ignores this.
Yet another instance of "a little learning is a dangerous thing". You
need to think harder about the words "as appear proper".
What that means is that it's for the jury to decide what appears proper, no-one else.
If the members of the jury want to draw adverse inferences from 'no
comment', they can. And they have the law to back them up.
A juror who says "no comment in any of the interviews tells me he must
be guilty" is plainly exhibiting bias and if that was your attitude
you would be a rubbish juror. In fact, I'd pass a note to the judge to
tell him to reprimand you.
Which of course, in view of the above, he wouldn't be able to do. Juries
are their own little parliaments, and jurors bring their own
experiences, prejudices and biases into the jury room. They decide
cases on whatever basis they like. No-one is privy to their
discussions, no-one can gainsay them, and a judge can't reprimand any
juror for holding the views he does.
A juror who says "he said no comment but he now says it was usual for
all employees to take out of date food from the store room - he could
have said that at the interview" is making a reasonable point.
The days are long gone when anyone could maintain that 'no comment'
implied nothing adverse and therefore had to be completely ignored. If
indeed they ever existed. I suspect jurors always tended to hold that against an accused; now it's an overt part of the law that they can.
On 25/03/2025 06:43 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 25/03/2025 09:32, billy bookcase wrote:
<snip>
"I was advised not to do so, by my lawyer"
is going to go down well, with a jury ?
One reason solicitors advise their clients to keep schtum is that
neither they or the client knows the basis of the inquiry.
And the no comment interview is to prevent the police from simply
fishing in what would be a one-sided dialogue.
I don't see why the jury shouldn't accept that the defendant kept to
their representative's advice?
Possibly because they are as aware as anyone that the representative is
on the side of the client rather than on the side of the police and the justice system (and for that matter, of justice).
And that consequently, the "advice" is not aimed at solving the crime.
On 26 Mar 2025 at 12:32:50 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 25/03/2025 06:43 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 25/03/2025 09:32, billy bookcase wrote:
<snip>
"I was advised not to do so, by my lawyer"
is going to go down well, with a jury ?
One reason solicitors advise their clients to keep schtum is that
neither they or the client knows the basis of the inquiry.
And the no comment interview is to prevent the police from simply
fishing in what would be a one-sided dialogue.
I don't see why the jury shouldn't accept that the defendant kept to
their representative's advice?
Possibly because they are as aware as anyone that the representative is
on the side of the client rather than on the side of the police and the
justice system (and for that matter, of justice).
You do not appear to comprehend the concept of justice.
It may be true that in
the great majority of cases dealt with in the magistrates court there is no real question of the defendant having committed a crime.
But it also remains
true that in some cases the police have the wrong person or the action they were charged with is not a crime. The police and prosecutors wanting to charge
the person are no more on the side of justice wanting to prosecute him than is
the defence lawyer wanting to make sure his side of the story is presented properly. You cannot have justice if only the police's and prosecutor's side of the story is heard.
And that consequently, the "advice" is not aimed at solving the crime.
Well no, the judge or magistrate and the CPS are not aiming at "solving the crime" either! That is why we have a police force. Maybe we should have examining magistrates or procurators fiscal too; but we don't.
The defence lawyers, by representing their client, are no more and no less "on
the side of justice" than the CPS and the courts.
Yours is a rather totalitarian concept of "justice", resembling more the Spanish Inquisition than modern concepts of the rule of law.
On 25/03/2025 01:36, JNugent wrote:
On 24/03/2025 06:36 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 21/03/2025 14:11, JNugent wrote:
On 21/03/2025 11:41 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 20/03/2025 08:30 AM, The Todal wrote:
Did you read the sentence immediately after the one containing that
phrase?
If relatives of the victim(s) believe the real culprit has been
convicted and punished then the desire for retribution will have
been satisfied. If other potential criminals are deterred by the
fact that a culprit has been convicted and punished, then the
requirement for deterrence will have been served. The rest of the
public, society as a whole, except for the actual criminal etc.,
will believe that the real culprit has been convicted and punished
and so can maintain the "necessary illusion" that the Criminal
Justice System works exactly as planned.
A "necessary illusion", eh?
What one perceives in an illusion is... erm... illusionary.
The real culprit is free to offend again. That's the disbenefit.
Which happens to be directly contrary to the fact that its clearly
impossible to identify, arrest, try, convict and punish the real
perpetrators of a sizeable percentage of actual crimes, in the
first place.
And?
Does that make it alright to pick the first greasy-looking candidate
on the street and process them as though they're guilty?
It's imagining otherwise which is the "disbelief".
Snipped, possibly attributing words to the wrong people.
Seems to be OK AFAICS.
I don't believe that "greasy-looking" is a demographic that the police
ever focus on, but being black, young and driving a car that seems to be >>> worth more than the officer's own Vauxhall Astra, would tend to cause
police to target that person.
That's an expansive assertion. Especially as you attribute it to all
police officers.
Oh, I'm sure that some police officers do their job properly. But
consider the case of Mr Afriyie. Not only was he tasered without good
reason, the trial judge believed the police acted reasonably. It took
the Court of Appeal to give him justice. There is a prejudice against well-built black men, who are assumed to be potentially violent. That's
why they disproportionately get beaten up by the police.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2024/1269.html
quotes
At around 5.30 a.m. on 7 April 2018 Edwin Afriyie ("the appellant") was driving his car through the City of London. On King William Street he
was stopped by officers of the City of London Police. This was because
he was suspected of driving at an excessive speed. In the event he was
never charged with any offence relating to his driving. He was required
to provide a sample of breath to measure his blood alcohol content.
In due course the appellant was arrested for failing to supply a sample
of breath. Police officers attempted to handcuff him. They were unable
to apply the handcuffs. There came a point at which the appellant was standing on the pavement with his arms folded. One of the police
officers, a PC Pringle, had drawn out his taser. PC Pringle discharged
the taser in the appellant's direction. The appellant fell back and
struck his head against a window ledge of the building behind him.
In April 2018 the appellant was aged 31. He was a social worker. He had worked closely with the police in that role, in particular in relation
to a community project in Peckham. The car he was driving on the morning
in question was owned by him. It was properly insured. These facts were confirmed by checks carried out by the police officers who had stopped
him – PCs Worster, Rickman and Lacy. The appellant had handed over his driving licence and his car keys to the officers. He was asked to
provide a sample of breath using a roadside breathalyser device. The
device registered the appellant's first two attempts as "insufficient".
Because he had used a taser, PC Pringle was required to complete a Use
of Force form which he did shortly after the incident. In a section
entitled "Information/Intelligence" the officer gave a description of
the appellant as follows: "Male of heavily muscular build, in a
heightened emotional state. Being arrested. Making verbal threats. Male removed wristwatch having pushed police hands away from him and assumed
a fighting stance. Repeatedly ignored commands to put hands out to be
cuffed and to calm down…." Under the heading "Threat assessment" the officer wrote: "Significant physical threat posed due to subject's
aggressive attitude, stance and general agitation."
In my judgment the appeal should be allowed. The use of a taser was not objectively reasonable in the circumstances notwithstanding PC Pringle's honest belief as to the need to use force.
...as William Davis LJ identifies, tasers are prohibited firearms. They
are potentially lethal weapons (see MCCarthy at [18]). PC Pringle had
agreed in evidence that the appellant could have been killed by the use
of the taser. The use of a taser on the appellant, who at the time of discharge was standing still in a non-aggressive stance with his arms
folded and talking to his friend, was not objectively reasonable in the circumstances.
On 26/03/2025 01:16 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Mar 2025 at 12:32:50 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 25/03/2025 06:43 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 25/03/2025 09:32, billy bookcase wrote:
<snip>
"I was advised not to do so, by my lawyer"
is going to go down well, with a jury ?
One reason solicitors advise their clients to keep schtum is that
neither they or the client knows the basis of the inquiry.
And the no comment interview is to prevent the police from simply
fishing in what would be a one-sided dialogue.
I don't see why the jury shouldn't accept that the defendant kept to
their representative's advice?
Possibly because they are as aware as anyone that the representative is
on the side of the client rather than on the side of the police and the
justice system (and for that matter, of justice).
You do not appear to comprehend the concept of justice.
That is a ridiculous thing to say.
On 26/03/2025 12:47, JNugent wrote:
On 26/03/2025 11:38 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/03/2025 10:35, The Todal wrote:
On 26/03/2025 10:10, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/03/2025 09:04, The Todal wrote:
If the jury is biased against defendants who say "no comment" then >>>>>> obviously it requires stern guidance from the judge to prevent them >>>>>> from giving a verdict other than on the evidence.
But Section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
gives the jury just such a right to be biased.
"2(d) the court or jury, in determining whether the accused is guilty >>>>> of the offence charged, may draw such inferences from the failure* as >>>>> appear proper".
* the failure to mention when questioned under caution any fact
relied on in his defence being something he could reasonably have
been expected to mention
Your antediluvian position totally ignores this.
Yet another instance of "a little learning is a dangerous thing". You
need to think harder about the words "as appear proper".
What that means is that it's for the jury to decide what appears proper, >>> no-one else.
If the members of the jury want to draw adverse inferences from 'no
comment', they can. And they have the law to back them up.
Indeed they have.
If it were otherwise, the changes in the Judge's Caution at around the
time of the PACE Act (mid to late 1980s) would have been without purpose.
If a refusal to answer questions (going "no comment") was not
something to be brought to the attention of a jury (or justices'
bench), what possible purpose would "..you may harm your defence..."
serve?
A juror who says "no comment in any of the interviews tells me he must >>>> be guilty" is plainly exhibiting bias and if that was your attitude
you would be a rubbish juror. In fact, I'd pass a note to the judge to >>>> tell him to reprimand you.
Which of course, in view of the above, he wouldn't be able to do. Juries >>> are their own little parliaments, and jurors bring their own
experiences, prejudices and biases into the jury room. They decide
cases on whatever basis they like. No-one is privy to their
discussions, no-one can gainsay them, and a judge can't reprimand any
juror for holding the views he does.
A juror who says "he said no comment but he now says it was usual for
all employees to take out of date food from the store room - he could
have said that at the interview" is making a reasonable point.
The days are long gone when anyone could maintain that 'no comment'
implied nothing adverse and therefore had to be completely ignored. If
indeed they ever existed. I suspect jurors always tended to hold that
against an accused; now it's an overt part of the law that they can.
Exactly.
I can remember an article written by someone with experience of
serving on a jusy (something I, regrettably, have never had).
He said that the jury soon realised, in the several trials they heard,
that staying silent (this before PACE and caution change) meant that
the defendant was hiding something.
It is telling that neither you nor Norman have ever served on a jury, so
you are likely to indulge your prejudices and assumptions based on
watching films and dramas that are inaccurate.
The judge will usually give the jury detailed directions at the end of
the case and will say where adverse inferences should or should not be
drawn.
No doubt the jury can then decide to find a person not guilty even if
this flies in the face of the evidence if most of the jurors have anti-establishment views (jury nullification). Or conversely find a
person guilty because he didn't wear a good enough suit in the dock. Or,
as you say, because they once read an article by a juror or spoke to a
friend who said how, in a particular trial ages ago, that jury decided
that the defendant was "hiding something" which meant that he must be
guilty. But one hopes that a sufficient number of jurors would take seriously their obligation to give a true verdict according to the
evidence.
It is a pity that it is still prohibited to ask jurors to
explain, even years later, how they deliberated, as they can do in the USA.
On 26/03/2025 11:38 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/03/2025 10:35, The Todal wrote:
On 26/03/2025 10:10, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/03/2025 09:04, The Todal wrote:
If the jury is biased against defendants who say "no comment" then
obviously it requires stern guidance from the judge to prevent them
from giving a verdict other than on the evidence.
But Section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
gives the jury just such a right to be biased.
"2(d) the court or jury, in determining whether the accused is guilty
of the offence charged, may draw such inferences from the failure* as
appear proper".
* the failure to mention when questioned under caution any fact
relied on in his defence being something he could reasonably have
been expected to mention
Your antediluvian position totally ignores this.
Yet another instance of "a little learning is a dangerous thing". You
need to think harder about the words "as appear proper".
What that means is that it's for the jury to decide what appears proper,
no-one else.
If the members of the jury want to draw adverse inferences from 'no
comment', they can. And they have the law to back them up.
Indeed they have.
If it were otherwise, the changes in the Judge's Caution at around the
time of the PACE Act (mid to late 1980s) would have been without purpose.
If a refusal to answer questions (going "no comment") was not something
to be brought to the attention of a jury (or justices' bench), what
possible purpose would "..you may harm your defence..." serve?
A juror who says "no comment in any of the interviews tells me he must
be guilty" is plainly exhibiting bias and if that was your attitude
you would be a rubbish juror. In fact, I'd pass a note to the judge to
tell him to reprimand you.
Which of course, in view of the above, he wouldn't be able to do. Juries
are their own little parliaments, and jurors bring their own
experiences, prejudices and biases into the jury room. They decide
cases on whatever basis they like. No-one is privy to their
discussions, no-one can gainsay them, and a judge can't reprimand any
juror for holding the views he does.
A juror who says "he said no comment but he now says it was usual for
all employees to take out of date food from the store room - he could
have said that at the interview" is making a reasonable point.
The days are long gone when anyone could maintain that 'no comment'
implied nothing adverse and therefore had to be completely ignored. If
indeed they ever existed. I suspect jurors always tended to hold that
against an accused; now it's an overt part of the law that they can.
Exactly.
I can remember an article written by someone with experience of serving
on a jusy (something I, regrettably, have never had).
He said that the jury soon realised, in the several trials they heard,
that staying silent (this before PACE and caution change) meant that the defendant was hiding something.
On 26/03/2025 13:36, JNugent wrote:
On 26/03/2025 01:16 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Mar 2025 at 12:32:50 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 25/03/2025 06:43 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 25/03/2025 09:32, billy bookcase wrote:
<snip>
"I was advised not to do so, by my lawyer"
is going to go down well, with a jury ?
One reason solicitors advise their clients to keep schtum is that
neither they or the client knows the basis of the inquiry.
And the no comment interview is to prevent the police from simply
fishing in what would be a one-sided dialogue.
I don't see why the jury shouldn't accept that the defendant kept to >>>>> their representative's advice?
Possibly because they are as aware as anyone that the representative is >>>> on the side of the client rather than on the side of the police and the >>>> justice system (and for that matter, of justice).
You do not appear to comprehend the concept of justice.
That is a ridiculous thing to say.
I recall a case of sexual assault / rape in a real life TV program. The defendant gave a written statement, to say sex he had sex with the complainant and this was consensual.
After that he gave a no comment interview, so as not to muddy his claim.
The police are allowed to ask the sort of questions that the defendant
is not allowed to ask the witness in court such as history and details
before the sex act.
I believe it never got to court. The burden of proof was never met for
the CPS to charge him. It was clear the intention of the interview was
to tie the defendant in knots and slant the questions to infer guilt.
On 26/03/2025 12:47, JNugent wrote:
It is telling that neither you nor Norman have ever served on a jury, so
you are likely to indulge your prejudices and assumptions based on
watching films and dramas that are inaccurate.
The judge will usually give the jury detailed directions at the end of
the case and will say where adverse inferences should or should not be
drawn.
No doubt the jury can then decide to find a person not guilty even if
this flies in the face of the evidence if most of the jurors have anti- establishment views (jury nullification). Or conversely find a person
guilty because he didn't wear a good enough suit in the dock. Or, as you
say, because they once read an article by a juror or spoke to a friend
who said how, in a particular trial ages ago, that jury decided that the defendant was "hiding something" which meant that he must be guilty.
But one hopes that a sufficient number of jurors would take seriously
their obligation to give a true verdict according to the evidence.
It is
a pity that it is still prohibited to ask jurors to explain, even years later, how they deliberated, as they can do in the USA.
On 26/03/2025 14:56, The Todal wrote:
On 26/03/2025 12:47, JNugent wrote:
It is telling that neither you nor Norman have ever served on a jury, so
you are likely to indulge your prejudices and assumptions based on
watching films and dramas that are inaccurate.
The judge will usually give the jury detailed directions at the end of
the case and will say where adverse inferences should or should not be
drawn.
No, that would be misdirection, and possible grounds for appeal. It's a matter for the jury alone to decide whether to draw adverse inferences.
It's not for the judge to browbeat them one way or the other. The law
says specifically that the jury may draw such inferences if they deem it appropriate.
On 25/03/2025 05:58 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m4fon3FsdtjU1@mid.individual.net...
On 25/03/2025 09:15 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m4d2gqFf6m1U1@mid.individual.net...
On 23/03/2025 06:34 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Ruthless snippage
As an example, whoever murdered PC Blakelock (remember him?), for instance, is
free
do it again (if they're still among us, forty years later).
You think that "society" is not bothered by unsolved brutal murders? >>>>> You'll have to justify that.
Surely the very fact that the best example you yourself could come up
with, despite all your concerns, is from *forty years ago*
speaks for itself ?
That was almost certainly far from being the best or worst example that could have
been
adduced. It was simply the one that came to mind.
Along with the implication that I myself like most other people
had probably forgotten all about him, until reminded by you.
As in "remember him ?"
Did you remember him?
Some people certainly do but dismiss the case because he was a police officer and
they're insinctively on the side of the murder(s).
So in that order to support your contention that society *do* bother
about unsolved murders the only example that immediately sprung to mind
was of a murder which occured 40 years ago. But which you are *now* claiming >> is only mainly remebered by people who never considered it to be murder
in the first place,
You do see the problem here, I take it ?
Yes, I do. The problem is that you think that people reading or hearing about that
brutal, savage crime at the time (or just after) don't regard it as murder.
On 26/03/2025 09:27 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 25/03/2025 01:36, JNugent wrote:
On 24/03/2025 06:36 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 21/03/2025 14:11, JNugent wrote:
On 21/03/2025 11:41 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 20/03/2025 08:30 AM, The Todal wrote:
Did you read the sentence immediately after the one containing that
phrase?
If relatives of the victim(s) believe the real culprit has been
convicted and punished then the desire for retribution will have
been satisfied. If other potential criminals are deterred by the
fact that a culprit has been convicted and punished, then the
requirement for deterrence will have been served. The rest of the
public, society as a whole, except for the actual criminal etc.,
will believe that the real culprit has been convicted and punished >>>>>> and so can maintain the "necessary illusion" that the Criminal
Justice System works exactly as planned.
A "necessary illusion", eh?
What one perceives in an illusion is... erm... illusionary.
The real culprit is free to offend again. That's the disbenefit.
Which happens to be directly contrary to the fact that its clearly >>>>>> impossible to identify, arrest, try, convict and punish the real
perpetrators of a sizeable percentage of actual crimes, in the
first place.
And?
Does that make it alright to pick the first greasy-looking candidate >>>>> on the street and process them as though they're guilty?
It's imagining otherwise which is the "disbelief".
Snipped, possibly attributing words to the wrong people.
Seems to be OK AFAICS.
I don't believe that "greasy-looking" is a demographic that the police >>>> ever focus on, but being black, young and driving a car that seems
to be
worth more than the officer's own Vauxhall Astra, would tend to cause
police to target that person.
That's an expansive assertion. Especially as you attribute it to all
police officers.
Oh, I'm sure that some police officers do their job properly. But
consider the case of Mr Afriyie. Not only was he tasered without good
reason, the trial judge believed the police acted reasonably. It took
the Court of Appeal to give him justice. There is a prejudice against
well-built black men, who are assumed to be potentially violent. That's
why they disproportionately get beaten up by the police.
"...the police..."
There you go again.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2024/1269.html
quotes
At around 5.30 a.m. on 7 April 2018 Edwin Afriyie ("the appellant") was
driving his car through the City of London. On King William Street he
was stopped by officers of the City of London Police. This was because
he was suspected of driving at an excessive speed. In the event he was
never charged with any offence relating to his driving. He was required
to provide a sample of breath to measure his blood alcohol content.
In due course the appellant was arrested for failing to supply a sample
of breath. Police officers attempted to handcuff him. They were unable
to apply the handcuffs. There came a point at which the appellant was
standing on the pavement with his arms folded. One of the police
officers, a PC Pringle, had drawn out his taser. PC Pringle discharged
the taser in the appellant's direction. The appellant fell back and
struck his head against a window ledge of the building behind him.
In April 2018 the appellant was aged 31. He was a social worker. He had
worked closely with the police in that role, in particular in relation
to a community project in Peckham. The car he was driving on the morning
in question was owned by him. It was properly insured. These facts were
confirmed by checks carried out by the police officers who had stopped
him – PCs Worster, Rickman and Lacy. The appellant had handed over his
driving licence and his car keys to the officers. He was asked to
provide a sample of breath using a roadside breathalyser device. The
device registered the appellant's first two attempts as "insufficient".
Because he had used a taser, PC Pringle was required to complete a Use
of Force form which he did shortly after the incident. In a section
entitled "Information/Intelligence" the officer gave a description of
the appellant as follows: "Male of heavily muscular build, in a
heightened emotional state. Being arrested. Making verbal threats. Male
removed wristwatch having pushed police hands away from him and assumed
a fighting stance. Repeatedly ignored commands to put hands out to be
cuffed and to calm down…." Under the heading "Threat assessment" the
officer wrote: "Significant physical threat posed due to subject's
aggressive attitude, stance and general agitation."
In my judgment the appeal should be allowed. The use of a taser was not
objectively reasonable in the circumstances notwithstanding PC Pringle's
honest belief as to the need to use force.
...as William Davis LJ identifies, tasers are prohibited firearms. They
are potentially lethal weapons (see MCCarthy at [18]). PC Pringle had
agreed in evidence that the appellant could have been killed by the use
of the taser. The use of a taser on the appellant, who at the time of
discharge was standing still in a non-aggressive stance with his arms
folded and talking to his friend, was not objectively reasonable in the
circumstances.
What ever came of the refusal to provide a sample?
As we know, that is an arrestable offence in its own right.
Are there any precedents for the suspected driver deciding to supersede
the requirement to provide a breath sample by asserting, silently or otherwise, that the just-delivered requirement is unlawful?
I suspect that we all know (or have known) friends, colleagues or
relatives who have fallen foul of the breathalyser*.
Why should any individual simply decide that it doesn't apply to him?
[* I have been breathalysed three times over a driving career of fifty
three years. Always negative, as I foretold the officers concerned. But
I certainly never refused to comply. That would be stupid.]
On 26/03/2025 01:50 PM, Fredxx wrote:
I recall a case of sexual assault / rape in a real life TV program. The
defendant gave a written statement, to say sex he had sex with the
complainant and this was consensual.
After that he gave a no comment interview, so as not to muddy his
claim.
The police are allowed to ask the sort of questions that the defendant
is not allowed to ask the witness in court such as history and details
before the sex act.
I believe it never got to court. The burden of proof was never met for
the CPS to charge him. It was clear the intention of the interview was
to tie the defendant in knots and slant the questions to infer guilt.
But he made a statement. That is not quite the same thing as going "no comment" all the way through the contact with police.
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 15:45:50 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 26/03/2025 01:50 PM, Fredxx wrote:
I recall a case of sexual assault / rape in a real life TV program. The
defendant gave a written statement, to say sex he had sex with the
complainant and this was consensual.
After that he gave a no comment interview, so as not to muddy his
claim.
The police are allowed to ask the sort of questions that the defendant
is not allowed to ask the witness in court such as history and details
before the sex act.
I believe it never got to court. The burden of proof was never met for
the CPS to charge him. It was clear the intention of the interview was
to tie the defendant in knots and slant the questions to infer guilt.
But he made a statement. That is not quite the same thing as going "no
comment" all the way through the contact with police.
These days all solicitors advise you to no-comment all the way through the interview; and then at the end, when you have clear idea of what their suspicions are based on, provide a carefully composed written statement.
As for Norman's suggestion of supplying repeated verbal responses of 'I
see you have no direct evidence whatsoever of any involvement by me', or
some even more elaborate composition, I don't see the point. I agree that some improvement on 'no comment' might be possible, but I doubt if it
makes much difference. Perhaps "I'll provide a written statement in due course".
If you stood still and folded your arms and said "I've given you three
breath samples now, and I'm not willing to do this again", what do you imagine the police are entitled to do?
Taser you? Whack you in the head with a truncheon? Kick you in the bollocks? Wrestle you to the ground and sit on you?
Maybe when you think this through and imagine it's you rather than a
burly black man who possibly has a passing resemblance to Winston
Silcott, you'll suddenly see sense.
On 26 Mar 2025 at 16:48:56 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 26/03/2025 14:56, The Todal wrote:
On 26/03/2025 12:47, JNugent wrote:
It is telling that neither you nor Norman have ever served on a jury, so >>> you are likely to indulge your prejudices and assumptions based on
watching films and dramas that are inaccurate.
The judge will usually give the jury detailed directions at the end of
the case and will say where adverse inferences should or should not be
drawn.
No, that would be misdirection, and possible grounds for appeal. It's a
matter for the jury alone to decide whether to draw adverse inferences.
It's not for the judge to browbeat them one way or the other. The law
says specifically that the jury may draw such inferences if they deem it
appropriate.
You seem to have missed the part of the law where it defines when adverse inferences can be drawn. For instance, no adverse inference can be drawn just because they have not answered questions. Only where there is information they
could have given earlier but now want to now use. Certainly if a defendant offers no defence no adverse inference can be drawn from that; the prosecution
must stand on its own merits. It is because the law defines what type of evidence can allow an adverse inference to be drawn that the judge must advise
the jury on this.
That's just for general information. You will no doubt carry on asserting the opposite.
On 26/03/2025 18:05, Handsome Jack wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 15:45:50 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 26/03/2025 01:50 PM, Fredxx wrote:
I recall a case of sexual assault / rape in a real life TV program. The >>>> defendant gave a written statement, to say sex he had sex with the
complainant and this was consensual.
After that he gave a no comment interview, so as not to muddy his
claim.
The police are allowed to ask the sort of questions that the defendant >>>> is not allowed to ask the witness in court such as history and details >>>> before the sex act.
I believe it never got to court. The burden of proof was never met for >>>> the CPS to charge him. It was clear the intention of the interview was >>>> to tie the defendant in knots and slant the questions to infer guilt.
But he made a statement. That is not quite the same thing as going "no
comment" all the way through the contact with police.
These days all solicitors advise you to no-comment all the way through the >> interview; and then at the end, when you have clear idea of what their
suspicions are based on, provide a carefully composed written statement.
As for Norman's suggestion of supplying repeated verbal responses of 'I
see you have no direct evidence whatsoever of any involvement by me', or
some even more elaborate composition, I don't see the point. I agree that
some improvement on 'no comment' might be possible, but I doubt if it
makes much difference. Perhaps "I'll provide a written statement in due
course".
Norman's suggestion is indeed laughable. It resembles the words of Dr Bodkin Adams in
his reply to the police officer on his arrest. "Murder, you say? But can you prove it?"
The police don't like a smartarse who tries to patronise them and that, more than
anything else, would make them suspect guilt.
Whereas in the real world, the police don't mind at all if you say "no comment" and
they don't see that as hostile or disrespectful. They encourage the suspect to consult
with a solicitor, knowing that otherwise any admissions would probably be flawed and
inadmissible. Sometimes the lawyer will say "My client has the following statement to
make and will not answer any further questions".
Anyway, this is a sample Court of Appeal case on the topic of "no comment" which is of
interest, but perhaps will be open to misinterpretation by those with little grasp of
the criminal law. For instance Norman claimed in a recent post that the trial judge is
not allowed to give any direction to the jury about drawing inferences from no-comment
interviews. In saying this, Norman hadn't researched the topic, obviously.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2011/1098.html
quotes
No reference was made to the appellant's police interview in his evidence in chief or
in cross-examination. In re-examination the appellant's counsel requested permission to
ask the appellant why he had said 'no comment' in answer to the police. Counsel for the
prosecution was asked by the judge if he had any objection. He had none. The question
was allowed to be put and the defendant said that he had acted on advice of the advice
of his solicitor. Counsel for the prosecution was then asked by the judge if he wished
to ask any questions of the defendant, and he said no.
It was a simple case in which the appellant's defence was a denial of being more than a
bystander. Whether or not that was true, there would be no mileage in seeking to
suggest that this was some form of late concoction.
This court has in the past said that prosecutors should not complicate trials by
invoking section 34 unless the nature of the case requires this to be done. In
Brizzalari [2004] EWCA Crim 310 at paragraph 57, the court said:
"the mischief at which the provision was primarily directed was the positive
defence following a "no comment" Interview and/or the "ambush" defence... We would
counsel against the further complicating of trials and summings up by invoking this
statute unless the merits of the individual case require that that should be done."
We endorse those comments.
We consider that the judge was wrong to give the direction which he did. His reasoning
was that because the appellant had made no comment in his police interview but had gone
on to give evidence, he was bound to give the jury a section 34 direction. This was
erroneous. We agree that it was necessary for the judge to say something about the fact
that he had remained silent in interview, as was his right, but it was incorrect to say
that he had to give the direction which he gave.
Where such a direction is given, the judge needs to be clear what are the facts given
in evidence but which the defendant failed to mention in interview in circumstances
from which the jury may be entitled to infer guilt. As mentioned, the facts identified
by the judge as potentially giving rise to an adverse inference were that he was
present at the time of the assault and that, on his account, he played no part in it.
Failure to mention something which is agreed to be true cannot, as a general proposition, give rise to an adverse inference.
For those reasons this appeal must be allowed and the conviction quashed.
On 26/03/2025 18:05, Handsome Jack wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 15:45:50 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 26/03/2025 01:50 PM, Fredxx wrote:
I recall a case of sexual assault / rape in a real life TV program. The >>>> defendant gave a written statement, to say sex he had sex with the
complainant and this was consensual.
After that he gave a no comment interview, so as not to muddy his
claim.
The police are allowed to ask the sort of questions that the defendant >>>> is not allowed to ask the witness in court such as history and details >>>> before the sex act.
I believe it never got to court. The burden of proof was never met for >>>> the CPS to charge him. It was clear the intention of the interview was >>>> to tie the defendant in knots and slant the questions to infer guilt.
But he made a statement. That is not quite the same thing as going "no
comment" all the way through the contact with police.
These days all solicitors advise you to no-comment all the way through the >> interview; and then at the end, when you have clear idea of what their
suspicions are based on, provide a carefully composed written statement.
As for Norman's suggestion of supplying repeated verbal responses of 'I
see you have no direct evidence whatsoever of any involvement by me', or
some even more elaborate composition, I don't see the point. I agree that
some improvement on 'no comment' might be possible, but I doubt if it
makes much difference. Perhaps "I'll provide a written statement in due
course".
Norman's suggestion is indeed laughable. It resembles the words of Dr
Bodkin Adams in his reply to the police officer on his arrest. "Murder,
you say? But can you prove it?"
The police don't like a smartarse who tries to patronise them and that,
more than anything else, would make them suspect guilt.
Whereas in the real world, the police don't mind at all if you say "no comment" and they don't see that as hostile or disrespectful. They
encourage the suspect to consult with a solicitor, knowing that
otherwise any admissions would probably be flawed and inadmissible.
Sometimes the lawyer will say "My client has the following statement to
make and will not answer any further questions".
Anyway, this is a sample Court of Appeal case on the topic of "no
comment" which is of interest, but perhaps will be open to
misinterpretation by those with little grasp of the criminal law. For instance Norman claimed in a recent post that the trial judge is not
allowed to give any direction to the jury about drawing inferences from no-comment interviews. In saying this, Norman hadn't researched the
topic, obviously.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2011/1098.html
quotes
No reference was made to the appellant's police interview in his
evidence in chief or in cross-examination. In re-examination the
appellant's counsel requested permission to ask the appellant why he had
said 'no comment' in answer to the police. Counsel for the prosecution
was asked by the judge if he had any objection. He had none. The
question was allowed to be put and the defendant said that he had acted
on advice of the advice of his solicitor. Counsel for the prosecution
was then asked by the judge if he wished to ask any questions of the defendant, and he said no.
It was a simple case in which the appellant's defence was a denial of
being more than a bystander. Whether or not that was true, there would
be no mileage in seeking to suggest that this was some form of late concoction.
This court has in the past said that prosecutors should not complicate
trials by invoking section 34 unless the nature of the case requires
this to be done. In Brizzalari [2004] EWCA Crim 310 at paragraph 57, the court said:
"the mischief at which the provision was primarily directed was the positive defence following a "no comment" Interview and/or the "ambush" defence... We would counsel against the further complicating of trials
and summings up by invoking this statute unless the merits of the
individual case require that that should be done."
We endorse those comments.
We consider that the judge was wrong to give the direction which he did.
His reasoning was that because the appellant had made no comment in his police interview but had gone on to give evidence, he was bound to give
the jury a section 34 direction. This was erroneous. We agree that it
was necessary for the judge to say something about the fact that he had remained silent in interview, as was his right, but it was incorrect to
say that he had to give the direction which he gave.
Where such a direction is given, the judge needs to be clear what are
the facts given in evidence but which the defendant failed to mention in interview in circumstances from which the jury may be entitled to infer guilt. As mentioned, the facts identified by the judge as potentially
giving rise to an adverse inference were that he was present at the time
of the assault and that, on his account, he played no part in it.
Failure to mention something which is agreed to be true cannot, as a general proposition, give rise to an adverse inference.
For those reasons this appeal must be allowed and the conviction quashed.
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 15:45:50 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 26/03/2025 01:50 PM, Fredxx wrote:
I recall a case of sexual assault / rape in a real life TV program. The
defendant gave a written statement, to say sex he had sex with the
complainant and this was consensual.
After that he gave a no comment interview, so as not to muddy his
claim.
The police are allowed to ask the sort of questions that the defendant
is not allowed to ask the witness in court such as history and details
before the sex act.
I believe it never got to court. The burden of proof was never met for
the CPS to charge him. It was clear the intention of the interview was
to tie the defendant in knots and slant the questions to infer guilt.
But he made a statement. That is not quite the same thing as going "no
comment" all the way through the contact with police.
These days all solicitors advise you to no-comment all the way through the interview;
and then at the end, when you have clear idea of what their
suspicions are based on, provide a carefully composed written statement.
As for Norman's suggestion of supplying repeated verbal responses of 'I
see you have no direct evidence whatsoever of any involvement by me', or
some even more elaborate composition, I don't see the point. I agree that some improvement on 'no comment' might be possible, but I doubt if it
makes much difference. Perhaps "I'll provide a written statement in due course".
On 26/03/2025 17:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Mar 2025 at 16:48:56 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 26/03/2025 14:56, The Todal wrote:
On 26/03/2025 12:47, JNugent wrote:
It is telling that neither you nor Norman have ever served on a jury, so >>>> you are likely to indulge your prejudices and assumptions based on
watching films and dramas that are inaccurate.
The judge will usually give the jury detailed directions at the end of >>>> the case and will say where adverse inferences should or should not be >>>> drawn.
No, that would be misdirection, and possible grounds for appeal. It's a >>> matter for the jury alone to decide whether to draw adverse inferences.
It's not for the judge to browbeat them one way or the other. The law
says specifically that the jury may draw such inferences if they deem it >>> appropriate.
You seem to have missed the part of the law where it defines when adverse
inferences can be drawn. For instance, no adverse inference can be drawn just
because they have not answered questions. Only where there is information they
could have given earlier but now want to now use. Certainly if a defendant >> offers no defence no adverse inference can be drawn from that; the prosecution
must stand on its own merits. It is because the law defines what type of
evidence can allow an adverse inference to be drawn that the judge must advise
the jury on this.
That's just for general information. You will no doubt carry on asserting the
opposite.
Of course the judge should give an accurate summary of what the law says
and how it applies. What he must not do is say which way any jury
question should be decided.
It's then up to the jury in secret whether they take any notice or not.
And, as I've said before, and as juries always have, they will read into
'no comment' whatever they want. I don't think the law changed that.
On 26/03/2025 18:19, The Todal wrote:
If you stood still and folded your arms and said "I've given you three
breath samples now, and I'm not willing to do this again", what do you
imagine the police are entitled to do?
Taser you? Whack you in the head with a truncheon? Kick you in the
bollocks? Wrestle you to the ground and sit on you?
They are entitled to arrest you using the force necessary to do so.
Resisting arrest is also an offence.
Maybe when you think this through and imagine it's you rather than a
burly black man who possibly has a passing resemblance to Winston
Silcott, you'll suddenly see sense.
If they say they're arresting me, I'd go quietly of course. But then
I'm law-abiding and unlikely to be driving at speed around urban streets
at 5am.
it's another offence not to. What I wouldn't do is play the race card,
ie 'You're only doing this because I's black*'.
On 26/03/2025 19:04, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/03/2025 18:19, The Todal wrote:
If you stood still and folded your arms and said "I've given you three
breath samples now, and I'm not willing to do this again", what do you
imagine the police are entitled to do?
Taser you? Whack you in the head with a truncheon? Kick you in the
bollocks? Wrestle you to the ground and sit on you?
They are entitled to arrest you using the force necessary to do so.
You don't seem to have attempted an answer to my question.
Resisting arrest is also an offence.
Using excessive and unnecessary force is also an offence. You haven't
read the full transcript, then. Or if you have, then you haven't
understood it.
Maybe when you think this through and imagine it's you rather than a
burly black man who possibly has a passing resemblance to Winston
Silcott, you'll suddenly see sense.
If they say they're arresting me, I'd go quietly of course. But then
I'm law-abiding and unlikely to be driving at speed around urban streets
at 5am.
You're unlikely to be driving at 30 mph in a 20 mph zone, because you're
a good boy.
Mr Afriye was driving a Mercedes car, which would obviously attract suspicion. He denied he had been speeding and was never charged with any speeding offence.
And like him, you won't have been drunk. They suspected him of being inebriated, which he wasn't. Would this be an excellent opportunity for
you to deploy your killer phrases?
'I see you have no direct evidence whatsoever of any involvement by me'.
'That's not going to go down well with the CPS, is it?'.
He was charged with failing to provide a breath specimen. He says he
offered to provide a urine specimen but that was refused. Still, justice
was done. At the first hearing in the Magistrates' Court, the
Prosecution was ordered to disclose the BWV footage within fourteen
days. The footage was not disclosed; and the prosecution was discontinued.
I'd also give a proper sample of breath when requested, knowing
it's another offence not to. What I wouldn't do is play the race card,
ie 'You're only doing this because I's black*'.
He didn't say that to the officers, but you find it convenient to import
a stereotype into the discussion.
If a person does not co-operate with the arresting officers, that isn't
a valid reason to inflict potentially lethal force as a punishment. The police know this. Maybe you don't.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:m4iacsFahjlU3@mid.individual.net...
On 25/03/2025 05:58 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m4fon3FsdtjU1@mid.individual.net...
On 25/03/2025 09:15 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m4d2gqFf6m1U1@mid.individual.net...
On 23/03/2025 06:34 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Ruthless snippage
As an example, whoever murdered PC Blakelock (remember him?), for instance, is
free
do it again (if they're still among us, forty years later).
You think that "society" is not bothered by unsolved brutal murders? >>>>>> You'll have to justify that.
Surely the very fact that the best example you yourself could come up >>>>> with, despite all your concerns, is from *forty years ago*
speaks for itself ?
That was almost certainly far from being the best or worst example that could have
been
adduced. It was simply the one that came to mind.
Along with the implication that I myself like most other people
had probably forgotten all about him, until reminded by you.
As in "remember him ?"
Did you remember him?
Some people certainly do but dismiss the case because he was a police officer and
they're insinctively on the side of the murder(s).
So in that order to support your contention that society *do* bother
about unsolved murders the only example that immediately sprung to mind
was of a murder which occured 40 years ago. But which you are *now* claiming
is only mainly remebered by people who never considered it to be murder
in the first place,
You do see the problem here, I take it ?
Yes, I do. The problem is that you think that people reading or hearing about that
brutal, savage crime at the time (or just after) don't regard it as murder.
This is the third and final time I will make this point.
In order to illustrate *your* claim that people are *rightly* concerned
about unsolved brutal murders, the *only* example you at first, and subsequently have been able to come up with, is one from *forty year
ago.*
So that as with some/many/most "adverse inferences", regardless of their legal legitimacy, there is nothing you can subsequently say which
can reverse that initial impression. That you somehow got your examples
mixed up, and produced one of your standbyes for an entirely different argument.
On 26/03/2025 12:39, JNugent wrote:
On 26/03/2025 09:27 AM, The Todal wrote:If you stood still and folded your arms and said "I've given you three
On 25/03/2025 01:36, JNugent wrote:
On 24/03/2025 06:36 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 21/03/2025 14:11, JNugent wrote:
On 21/03/2025 11:41 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 20/03/2025 08:30 AM, The Todal wrote:
Did you read the sentence immediately after the one containing that >>>>>> phrase?
If relatives of the victim(s) believe the real culprit has been
convicted and punished then the desire for retribution will have >>>>>>> been satisfied. If other potential criminals are deterred by the >>>>>>> fact that a culprit has been convicted and punished, then the
requirement for deterrence will have been served. The rest of the >>>>>>> public, society as a whole, except for the actual criminal etc., >>>>>>> will believe that the real culprit has been convicted and punished >>>>>>> and so can maintain the "necessary illusion" that the Criminal
Justice System works exactly as planned.
A "necessary illusion", eh?
What one perceives in an illusion is... erm... illusionary.
The real culprit is free to offend again. That's the disbenefit.
Which happens to be directly contrary to the fact that its clearly >>>>>>> impossible to identify, arrest, try, convict and punish the real >>>>>>> perpetrators of a sizeable percentage of actual crimes, in the
first place.
And?
Does that make it alright to pick the first greasy-looking candidate >>>>>> on the street and process them as though they're guilty?
It's imagining otherwise which is the "disbelief".
Snipped, possibly attributing words to the wrong people.
Seems to be OK AFAICS.
I don't believe that "greasy-looking" is a demographic that the police >>>>> ever focus on, but being black, young and driving a car that seems
to be
worth more than the officer's own Vauxhall Astra, would tend to cause >>>>> police to target that person.
That's an expansive assertion. Especially as you attribute it to all
police officers.
Oh, I'm sure that some police officers do their job properly. But
consider the case of Mr Afriyie. Not only was he tasered without good
reason, the trial judge believed the police acted reasonably. It took
the Court of Appeal to give him justice. There is a prejudice against
well-built black men, who are assumed to be potentially violent. That's
why they disproportionately get beaten up by the police.
"...the police..."
There you go again.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2024/1269.html
quotes
At around 5.30 a.m. on 7 April 2018 Edwin Afriyie ("the appellant") was
driving his car through the City of London. On King William Street he
was stopped by officers of the City of London Police. This was because
he was suspected of driving at an excessive speed. In the event he was
never charged with any offence relating to his driving. He was required
to provide a sample of breath to measure his blood alcohol content.
In due course the appellant was arrested for failing to supply a sample
of breath. Police officers attempted to handcuff him. They were unable
to apply the handcuffs. There came a point at which the appellant was
standing on the pavement with his arms folded. One of the police
officers, a PC Pringle, had drawn out his taser. PC Pringle discharged
the taser in the appellant's direction. The appellant fell back and
struck his head against a window ledge of the building behind him.
In April 2018 the appellant was aged 31. He was a social worker. He had
worked closely with the police in that role, in particular in relation
to a community project in Peckham. The car he was driving on the morning >>> in question was owned by him. It was properly insured. These facts were
confirmed by checks carried out by the police officers who had stopped
him – PCs Worster, Rickman and Lacy. The appellant had handed over his >>> driving licence and his car keys to the officers. He was asked to
provide a sample of breath using a roadside breathalyser device. The
device registered the appellant's first two attempts as "insufficient".
Because he had used a taser, PC Pringle was required to complete a Use
of Force form which he did shortly after the incident. In a section
entitled "Information/Intelligence" the officer gave a description of
the appellant as follows: "Male of heavily muscular build, in a
heightened emotional state. Being arrested. Making verbal threats. Male
removed wristwatch having pushed police hands away from him and assumed
a fighting stance. Repeatedly ignored commands to put hands out to be
cuffed and to calm down…." Under the heading "Threat assessment" the
officer wrote: "Significant physical threat posed due to subject's
aggressive attitude, stance and general agitation."
In my judgment the appeal should be allowed. The use of a taser was not
objectively reasonable in the circumstances notwithstanding PC Pringle's >>> honest belief as to the need to use force.
...as William Davis LJ identifies, tasers are prohibited firearms. They
are potentially lethal weapons (see MCCarthy at [18]). PC Pringle had
agreed in evidence that the appellant could have been killed by the use
of the taser. The use of a taser on the appellant, who at the time of
discharge was standing still in a non-aggressive stance with his arms
folded and talking to his friend, was not objectively reasonable in the
circumstances.
What ever came of the refusal to provide a sample?
As we know, that is an arrestable offence in its own right.
Are there any precedents for the suspected driver deciding to
supersede the requirement to provide a breath sample by asserting,
silently or otherwise, that the just-delivered requirement is unlawful?
I suspect that we all know (or have known) friends, colleagues or
relatives who have fallen foul of the breathalyser*.
Why should any individual simply decide that it doesn't apply to him?
[* I have been breathalysed three times over a driving career of fifty
three years. Always negative, as I foretold the officers concerned.
But I certainly never refused to comply. That would be stupid.]
breath samples now, and I'm not willing to do this again", what do you imagine the police are entitled to do?
Taser you? Whack you in the head with a truncheon? Kick you in the
bollocks? Wrestle you to the ground and sit on you?
Maybe when you think this through and imagine it's you rather than a
burly black man who possibly has a passing resemblance to Winston
Silcott, you'll suddenly see sense.
On 26/03/2025 18:05, Handsome Jack wrote:
These days all solicitors advise you to no-comment all the way through
the interview;
I don't think they do actually. On what do you base that statement?
and then at the end, when you have clear idea of what their suspicions
are based on, provide a carefully composed written statement.
And then you'll be questioned again. You see, you don't know when 'the
end' is, and you don't control the process. The police do.
On 26/03/2025 06:06 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m4iacsFahjlU3@mid.individual.net...
On 25/03/2025 05:58 PM, billy bookcase wrote:This is the third and final time I will make this point.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m4fon3FsdtjU1@mid.individual.net...
On 25/03/2025 09:15 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m4d2gqFf6m1U1@mid.individual.net...
On 23/03/2025 06:34 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Ruthless snippage
As an example, whoever murdered PC Blakelock (remember him?), for instance, is
free
do it again (if they're still among us, forty years later).
You think that "society" is not bothered by unsolved brutal murders? >>>>>>> You'll have to justify that.
Surely the very fact that the best example you yourself could come up >>>>>> with, despite all your concerns, is from *forty years ago*
speaks for itself ?
That was almost certainly far from being the best or worst example that could have
been
adduced. It was simply the one that came to mind.
Along with the implication that I myself like most other people
had probably forgotten all about him, until reminded by you.
As in "remember him ?"
Did you remember him?
Some people certainly do but dismiss the case because he was a police officer and
they're insinctively on the side of the murder(s).
So in that order to support your contention that society *do* bother
about unsolved murders the only example that immediately sprung to mind >>>> was of a murder which occured 40 years ago. But which you are *now* claiming
is only mainly remebered by people who never considered it to be murder >>>> in the first place,
You do see the problem here, I take it ?
Yes, I do. The problem is that you think that people reading or hearing about that
brutal, savage crime at the time (or just after) don't regard it as murder. >>
In order to illustrate *your* claim that people are *rightly* concerned
about unsolved brutal murders, the *only* example you at first, and
subsequently have been able to come up with, is one from *forty year
ago.*
That is not a point.
It is an irrelevant observation.
I do not keep a dossier of brutal murders ready to be adduced in argument.
Do you?
So that as with some/many/most "adverse inferences", regardless of their
legal legitimacy, there is nothing you can subsequently say which
can reverse that initial impression. That you somehow got your examples
mixed up, and produced one of your standbyes for an entirely different
argument.
You have claimed that the citizenry are not bothered about brutal murders.
You ought to concentrate on trying to find some - any - justification for that
outlandish claim.
On 22/03/2025 13:42, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvttaqo.5a3.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-03-22, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
< snip >
Why do you think Auriol Gray "doesn't deserve" compensation ?
Because of what I saw on the video that featured the interaction between >>> her and the deceased cyclist,
I see.
The passage I quoted earlier contained the following information -
quote::
She walked with a limp and wore a lower leg brace. She had lost half her
sight in each eye.
:unquote
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/20240508-R-v-Auriol-Gray.pdf
To repeat "She had lost half her sight in each eye. She was half blind in
other words.
So that when viewing that video, what evidence could you see that made
it clear that Aurial Gray was both half blind, and was wearing a leg
brace ?
But that nevertheless she was clearly guilty ?.
Or for that matter what evidence did you bring to bear on the visual
capabilities
of half blind people when encountering oncoming cyclists on a narrow
pavements at all ? Presumably you must have assumed she "clearly" saw
her
approaching. So on what basis did you make that assumption ?
Again from the quoted passage...
quote:
She said that the cyclist had been travelling towards her at speed and
that
she had "flinched out" with her left arm to protect herself
:unquote
To repeat "At speed".
The victim was in her 70's .
It happens to be an established fact that as we grow older our sense
of balance
deteriorates. So that put simply, while a 20 year old on a fixie could
do track
stands on a narrow pavement, as people become older and on a
freewheel, they
will need to ride progressively faster in order to stay upright while
keeping
their feet on the pedals.
Unfortunately because the video didn't show the victim's approach -
the half blind
Auriol Gray's claim that she was travelling at speed - which could
have been
verified independently using sampled 70 yr olds navigating narrow
pavements -
was simply taken to be a lie.
Her conviction was a total outrage. And not only was she banged up in
prison
but the private life of this essentially private person was splashed
all over
the papers for no there reason than to satisfy the cycling lobbies
desire for
vengeance.
What a truly unpleasant bunch they reveal themselves as be.
< Jury reference snipped >
It is my sad duty to inform you that there are several factual
inaccuracies above.
In no particular order:
The pavement was not "narrow". At the point where the incident took
place it was measured as being 2.4 metres wide. A definition of
"narrow" would require it to be less than 1.8 metres wide (incidentally,
the distance required for 2 wheelchairs to pass each other).
CCTV from a Sainsbury's supermarket which was adduced in court, (but
which is not publicly available), showed that Mrs Ward was a competent cyclist with the "ability to avoid obstacles and oncoming shoppers"
(Para 8 of the COA judgment [^1])
The same CCTV was used to estimate that Mrs Ward was travelling at
around 4.7mph, slightly above the average walking pace (Same source as above).
Ergo, Ms Grey's claim that Mrs Ward was travelling "at speed" was proven
in court to be untrue and your repeated use of Ms Grey's claim does not assist your in advancing your cause.
Similarly, your claims that Mrs Ward needed to travel at speed to remain upright and / or was unsafe were proven to be untrue in court by both
CCTV and eyewitness testimony.
So, other than being demonstrably and completely wrong on the three main pillars of your argument, you make a most compelling case.
Regards
S.P.
[^1] https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/20240508-R-v-Auriol-Gray.pdf
[^2]
[^2] Whilst they used the correct spelling of Ms Grey's name throughout
the judgment, they have used the wrong spelling in the URL of the PDF judgment.
On 22/03/2025 13:42, billy bookcase wrote:
Or for that matter what evidence did you bring to bear on the visual
capabilities
of half blind people when encountering oncoming cyclists on a narrow
pavements at all ? Presumably you must have assumed she "clearly" saw her >> approaching. So on what basis did you make that assumption ?
It is my sad duty to inform you that there are several factual inaccuracies above.
In no particular order:
The pavement was not "narrow". At the point where the incident took place it was measured as being 2.4 metres wide. A definition of "narrow" would require it to be less than 1.8 metres wide (incidentally, the distance required for 2 wheelchairs to pass each other).
On 21/03/2025 09:09, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/03/2025 08:40, The Todal wrote:
On 20/03/2025 11:25, Nick Finnigan wrote:
It might involve revealing something which is immoral, orOr it might be: "we've heard that three years ago you had an argument
embarrassing, but not illegal (or fattening). So, better to 'no
comment' from the start ?
with the victim, you shouted at him, you nearly came to blows, you
used the words "I won't ever forget this". Do you agree that happened" >>>
"Yes, that did happen but I think we got along fine with each other
after that".
"Sarge, that's the final piece of our case! Well done! Let's now go
to CPS for their decision".
Why we have the independent CPS is for it to judge how significant
such matters are.
To quote Ed Catmull, "Driving the train doesn't set its course. The
real job is laying the track."
The CPS are merely driving the train down tracks the police have laid
for them.
The CPS may well be independent of the police but that doesn't mean they
can "drive the train" wherever they like.
Tangentially, if you have any friends or acquaintances that are serving
or former police officers, ask them what advice they are given by the relevant representatives when being formally questioned. You will find
that the advice generally falls into two categories:
(1) In the initial stages of the investigation, answer all questions
with "No comment".
(2) Once the case against you is formally laid out, submit a written
response and refuse to answer any further questions, unless the
questions are, once again, in writing and provide a written response
thereto.
As that is SOP for serving police officers, I consider it sensible for others, myself included should the need arise, to adopt the same model.
YMMV.
On 22/03/2025 13:42, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvttaqo.5a3.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-03-22, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
< snip >
Why do you think Auriol Gray "doesn't deserve" compensation ?
Because of what I saw on the video that featured the interaction between >>> her and the deceased cyclist,
I see.
The passage I quoted earlier contained the following information -
quote::
She walked with a limp and wore a lower leg brace. She had lost half her
sight in each eye.
:unquote
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/20240508-R-v-Auriol-Gray.pdf
To repeat "She had lost half her sight in each eye. She was half blind in
other words.
So that when viewing that video, what evidence could you see that made
it clear that Aurial Gray was both half blind, and was wearing a leg brace ? >>
But that nevertheless she was clearly guilty ?.
Or for that matter what evidence did you bring to bear on the visual capabilities
of half blind people when encountering oncoming cyclists on a narrow
pavements at all ? Presumably you must have assumed she "clearly" saw her >> approaching. So on what basis did you make that assumption ?
Again from the quoted passage...
quote:
She said that the cyclist had been travelling towards her at speed and that >> she had "flinched out" with her left arm to protect herself
:unquote
To repeat "At speed".
The victim was in her 70's .
It happens to be an established fact that as we grow older our sense of balance
deteriorates. So that put simply, while a 20 year old on a fixie could do track
stands on a narrow pavement, as people become older and on a freewheel, they >> will need to ride progressively faster in order to stay upright while keeping
their feet on the pedals.
Unfortunately because the video didn't show the victim's approach - the half blind
Auriol Gray's claim that she was travelling at speed - which could have been >> verified independently using sampled 70 yr olds navigating narrow pavements -
was simply taken to be a lie.
Her conviction was a total outrage. And not only was she banged up in prison >> but the private life of this essentially private person was splashed all over
the papers for no there reason than to satisfy the cycling lobbies desire for
vengeance.
What a truly unpleasant bunch they reveal themselves as be.
< Jury reference snipped >
It is my sad duty to inform you that there are several factual inaccuracies above.
In no particular order:
The pavement was not "narrow". At the point where the incident took place it was
measured as being 2.4 metres wide. A definition of "narrow" would require it to be
less than 1.8 metres wide (incidentally, the distance required for 2 wheelchairs to
pass each other).
CCTV from a Sainsbury's supermarket which was adduced in court, (but which is not
publicly available), showed that Mrs Ward was a competent cyclist with the "ability to
avoid obstacles and oncoming shoppers" (Para 8 of the COA judgment [^1])
The same CCTV was used to estimate that Mrs Ward was travelling at around 4.7mph,
slightly above the average walking pace (Same source as above).
Ergo, Ms Grey's claim that Mrs Ward was travelling "at speed" was proven in court to be
untrue and your repeated use of Ms Grey's claim does not assist your in advancing your
cause.
Similarly, your claims that Mrs Ward needed to travel at speed to remain upright and /
or was unsafe were proven to be untrue in court by both CCTV and eyewitness testimony.
So, other than being demonstrably and completely wrong on the three main pillars of
your argument, you make a most compelling case.
On 20/03/2025 13:12, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/03/2025 11:45, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 Mar 2025 at 10:46:15 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
'Technicalities' are there to be abided by in the interests of fair
trials, which I'd hope we all support. It would be fairer to call them >>>> failures in the case that had to be proved.
Was it just a 'technicality' that resulted in Auriol Grey being
imprisoned for over a year?
Very much so: had the case been presented properly it is quite
probably that she would still have been found guilty.
I think not because the evidence we've all seen, including a video of
the whole incident, was wholly inconclusive.
You've seen the CCTV footage from the nearby Sainsbury's supermarket
from which it was possible to ascertain both Mrs Ward's competency as a cyclist and the approximate speed at which she was travelling, (which
for the avoidance of doubt, was slightly above the average speed at
which a pedestrian walks)? (See para [8] of the COA's judgment [^1] in
case you've forgotten or missed it when skimming the judgment.)
Do you have a link for the Sainsbury's video please and details of how
many people have seen it to support your claim that "we've all seen
[it]" as my understanding is that it has only been shown in Court and
anyone therefore not in court, which includes, to the best of my
knowledge, every single poster in this august NG, including but not
limited to your good self?
But we'll never know because her trial, which was already a retrial in
which that jury wasn't convinced, was the last one there'll be.
And rightly so, I would suggest.
The 'technicality' as you regard it was one of the prosecution failing
to establish its case under the law. Call it a technicality if you
like, but it's absolutely right that such 'technicalities' exist to
protect the innocent from being unjustly punished by the State.
And the defence and judge failing to spot the omission by the
prosecution. I consider it a gross failure by all parties. YMMV.
On 22/03/2025 13:42, billy bookcase wrote:
Her conviction was a total outrage. And not only was she banged up in
prison but the private life of this essentially private person was splashed >> all over the papers for no there reason than to satisfy the cycling lobbies >> desire for vengeance.
What a truly unpleasant bunch they reveal themselves as be.
< Jury reference snipped >
It is my sad duty to inform you that there are several factual
inaccuracies above.
In no particular order:
The pavement was not "narrow". At the point where the incident took
place it was measured as being 2.4 metres wide. A definition of
"narrow" would require it to be less than 1.8 metres wide (incidentally,
the distance required for 2 wheelchairs to pass each other).
CCTV from a Sainsbury's supermarket which was adduced in court, (but
which is not publicly available), showed that Mrs Ward was a competent cyclist with the "ability to avoid obstacles and oncoming
shoppers" (Para 8 of the COA judgment [^1])
"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message news:m4kmqpF2hpU3@mid.individual.net...
On 22/03/2025 13:42, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvttaqo.5a3.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-03-22, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
<snip >
Why do you think Auriol Gray "doesn't deserve" compensation ?
Because of what I saw on the video that featured the interaction between >>>> her and the deceased cyclist,
I see.
The passage I quoted earlier contained the following information -
quote::
She walked with a limp and wore a lower leg brace. She had lost half her >>> sight in each eye.
:unquote
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/20240508-R-v-Auriol-Gray.pdf
To repeat "She had lost half her sight in each eye. She was half blind in >>> other words.
So that when viewing that video, what evidence could you see that made
it clear that Aurial Gray was both half blind, and was wearing a leg brace ?
But that nevertheless she was clearly guilty ?.
Or for that matter what evidence did you bring to bear on the visual
capabilities
of half blind people when encountering oncoming cyclists on a narrow
pavements at all ? Presumably you must have assumed she "clearly" saw her >>> approaching. So on what basis did you make that assumption ?
Again from the quoted passage...
quote:
She said that the cyclist had been travelling towards her at speed and that >>> she had "flinched out" with her left arm to protect herself
:unquote
To repeat "At speed".
The victim was in her 70's .
It happens to be an established fact that as we grow older our sense of balance
deteriorates. So that put simply, while a 20 year old on a fixie could do track
stands on a narrow pavement, as people become older and on a freewheel, they
will need to ride progressively faster in order to stay upright while keeping
their feet on the pedals.
Unfortunately because the video didn't show the victim's approach - the half
blind
Auriol Gray's claim that she was travelling at speed - which could have been
verified independently using sampled 70 yr olds navigating narrow pavements -
was simply taken to be a lie.
Her conviction was a total outrage. And not only was she banged up in prison
but the private life of this essentially private person was splashed all over
the papers for no there reason than to satisfy the cycling lobbies desire for
vengeance.
What a truly unpleasant bunch they reveal themselves as be.
<Jury reference snipped >
It is my sad duty to inform you that there are several factual inaccuracies >> above.
In no particular order:
The pavement was not "narrow". At the point where the incident took place it >> was
measured as being 2.4 metres wide. A definition of "narrow" would require it >> to be
less than 1.8 metres wide (incidentally, the distance required for 2
wheelchairs to
pass each other).
I formerly quoted medical testimony that Autrio Grau had lost the left
half of her left hand vision and the right half of her right hand vision,
Which from Auriol Grays perspective, if not from that of yourself or HH Sean Enright.
makes that pavement exactly 1.2 metres wide,
1-0
snip
The same CCTV was used to estimate that Mrs Ward was travelling at
around 4.7mph, slightly above the average walking pace (Same source as >above).
It is telling that neither you nor Norman have ever served on a jury, so
you are likely to indulge your prejudices and assumptions based on
watching films and dramas that are inaccurate.
The judge will usually give the jury detailed directions at the end of
the case and will say where adverse inferences should or should not be
drawn.
It is a pity that it is still prohibited to ask jurors to
explain, even years later, how they deliberated, as they can do in the USA.
On 27 Mar 2025 at 11:28:59 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
I formerly quoted medical testimony that Autrio Grau had lost the left
half of her left hand vision and the right half of her right hand vision,
No you didn't. You quoted testimony that she had lost the right hand half of her vision in both eyes. Hopefully early enough to remember to move her head or her eyes to see the right side. (At an older age the patient tends to unaware that there is a right side of the world.)
On 27 Mar 2025 at 11:28:59 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:m4kmqpF2hpU3@mid.individual.net...
On 22/03/2025 13:42, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvttaqo.5a3.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-03-22, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
<snip >
Why do you think Auriol Gray "doesn't deserve" compensation ?
Because of what I saw on the video that featured the interaction between >>>>> her and the deceased cyclist,
I see.
The passage I quoted earlier contained the following information -
quote::
She walked with a limp and wore a lower leg brace. She had lost half her >>>> sight in each eye.
:unquote
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/20240508-R-v-Auriol-Gray.pdf
To repeat "She had lost half her sight in each eye. She was half blind in >>>> other words.
So that when viewing that video, what evidence could you see that made >>>> it clear that Aurial Gray was both half blind, and was wearing a leg brace ?
But that nevertheless she was clearly guilty ?.
Or for that matter what evidence did you bring to bear on the visual
capabilities
of half blind people when encountering oncoming cyclists on a narrow
pavements at all ? Presumably you must have assumed she "clearly" saw her >>>> approaching. So on what basis did you make that assumption ?
Again from the quoted passage...
quote:
She said that the cyclist had been travelling towards her at speed and that
she had "flinched out" with her left arm to protect herself
:unquote
To repeat "At speed".
The victim was in her 70's .
It happens to be an established fact that as we grow older our sense of balance
deteriorates. So that put simply, while a 20 year old on a fixie could do track
stands on a narrow pavement, as people become older and on a freewheel, they
will need to ride progressively faster in order to stay upright while keeping
their feet on the pedals.
Unfortunately because the video didn't show the victim's approach - the half
blind
Auriol Gray's claim that she was travelling at speed - which could have been
verified independently using sampled 70 yr olds navigating narrow pavements -
was simply taken to be a lie.
Her conviction was a total outrage. And not only was she banged up in prison
but the private life of this essentially private person was splashed all over
the papers for no there reason than to satisfy the cycling lobbies desire for
vengeance.
What a truly unpleasant bunch they reveal themselves as be.
<Jury reference snipped >
It is my sad duty to inform you that there are several factual inaccuracies >>> above.
In no particular order:
The pavement was not "narrow". At the point where the incident took place it
was
measured as being 2.4 metres wide. A definition of "narrow" would require it
to be
less than 1.8 metres wide (incidentally, the distance required for 2
wheelchairs to
pass each other).
I formerly quoted medical testimony that Autrio Grau had lost the left
half of her left hand vision and the right half of her right hand vision,
No you didn't. You quoted testimony that she had lost the right hand half of her vision in both eyes. Hopefully early enough to remember to move her head or her eyes to see the right side. (At an older age the patient tends to unaware that there is a right side of the world.)
Which from Auriol Grays perspective, if not from that of yourself or HH Sean
Enright.
makes that pavement exactly 1.2 metres wide,
1-0
I don't see why her loss of vision should make things look smaller.
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 14:56:27 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
It is telling that neither you nor Norman have ever served on a jury, so
you are likely to indulge your prejudices and assumptions based on
watching films and dramas that are inaccurate.
When I was a juror, we weren't told any detail about the police interviews. We certainly weren't told whether the defendants ever declined to asnwer a question or not. I suspect there would be no reason to unless the CPS was in a position to avail itself of the "It may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court" clause. And a simple "no comment", particularly if an interview was conducted in the absence of a legal representative, wouldn't amount to that.
Those here commenting on the visual ability of Ms Grey would be wise to google hemianopia.
Those here commenting on the visual ability of Ms Grey would be wise to google hemianopia.
On 2025-03-27, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
Those here commenting on the visual ability of Ms Grey would be wise to
google hemianopia.
It appears to mean exactly what I thought it did. What is harder to
imagine is the "and you're not aware of it" optional extra.
On 2025-03-27, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
Those here commenting on the visual ability of Ms Grey would be wise to
google hemianopia.
It appears to mean exactly what I thought it did. What is harder to
imagine is the "and you're not aware of it" optional extra.
On 27/03/2025 23:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-27, GB <NotSomeone@Microsoft.Invalid> wrote:
Those here commenting on the visual ability of Ms Grey would be wise to
google hemianopia.
It appears to mean exactly what I thought it did. What is harder to
imagine is the "and you're not aware of it" optional extra.
There are cases of people who can eat all the food on the left side of
the plate, but not on the right. Turn the plate round, and they will
happily eat the other half.
One explanation could be that there's simply no space in the damaged
brain for half of the surrounding environment.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 35:02:36 |
| Calls: | 9,798 |
| Files: | 13,751 |
| Messages: | 6,189,205 |