Wonderful news! Trudi Warner, who held a placard advising jurors that
they had the right to acquit a defendant irrespective of what the judge
says, has won. In an excellent judgment, Mr Justice Saini has dismissed
the application by the Solicitor General to bring proceedings for
contempt against Ms Warner. Her conduct was in no way unlawful.
quote
The trial of a number of defendants affiliated with the environmental
group Insulate Britain was due to begin at Inner London Crown Court on
Monday 27 March 2023.
Between 8am and 9am, in the area near the entrance to that court used by judges and jurors, Ms Warner carried a placard with the handwritten
words: “JURORS YOU HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO ACQUIT A DEFENDANT
ACCORDING TO YOUR CONSCIENCE”.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/HM-Solicitor-General-v-Warner-Judgment-22.4.24-KB.pdf
Wonderful news! Trudi Warner, who held a placard advising jurors that
they had the right to acquit a defendant irrespective of what the judge
says, has won. In an excellent judgment, Mr Justice Saini has dismissed
the application by the Solicitor General to bring proceedings for
contempt against Ms Warner. Her conduct was in no way unlawful.
quote
The trial of a number of defendants affiliated with the environmental
group Insulate Britain was due to begin at Inner London Crown Court on
Monday 27 March 2023.
Between 8am and 9am, in the area near the entrance to that court used by >judges and jurors, Ms Warner carried a placard with the handwritten
words: JURORS YOU HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO ACQUIT A DEFENDANT
ACCORDING TO YOUR CONSCIENCE.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/HM-Solicitor-General-v-Warner-Judgment-22.4.24-KB.pdf
On 22/04/2024 13:50, The Todal wrote:
Wonderful news! Trudi Warner, who held a placard advising jurors that
they had the right to acquit a defendant irrespective of what the judge says, has won. In an excellent judgment, Mr Justice Saini has dismissed
the application by the Solicitor General to bring proceedings for
contempt against Ms Warner. Her conduct was in no way unlawful.
quote
The trial of a number of defendants affiliated with the environmental
group Insulate Britain was due to begin at Inner London Crown Court on Monday 27 March 2023.
Between 8am and 9am, in the area near the entrance to that court used by judges and jurors, Ms Warner carried a placard with the handwritten
words: “JURORS YOU HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO ACQUIT A DEFENDANT
ACCORDING TO YOUR CONSCIENCE”.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/HM-Solicitor-General-v-Warner-Judgment-22.4.24-KB.pdf
It's obviously reasonable that jurors should use their common sense and conscience.
What's not at all obvious is why anyone chose to prosecute this lady,
with the result of proving her right? Will this inspire Tommy Robinson
to appeal his contempt sentence?
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 13:50:46 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
Wonderful news! Trudi Warner, who held a placard advising jurors that
they had the right to acquit a defendant irrespective of what the judge >>says, has won. In an excellent judgment, Mr Justice Saini has dismissed
the application by the Solicitor General to bring proceedings for
contempt against Ms Warner. Her conduct was in no way unlawful.
quote
The trial of a number of defendants affiliated with the environmental
group Insulate Britain was due to begin at Inner London Crown Court on >>Monday 27 March 2023.
Between 8am and 9am, in the area near the entrance to that court used by >>judges and jurors, Ms Warner carried a placard with the handwritten
words: JURORS YOU HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO ACQUIT A DEFENDANT
ACCORDING TO YOUR CONSCIENCE.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/HM-Solicitor-General-v-Warner-Judgment-22.4.24-KB.pdf
A very interesting judgment which raises two questions for me, one of
which is relevant to law in the UK.
Did the Solicitor General press ahead with this case against the
advice of their legal advisors or is the quality of legal advice in
Downing Street so poor that the course of action taken by the SG was suggested by those advisors and then accepted by the SG?
On 2024-04-22, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 13:50:46 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
Wonderful news! Trudi Warner, who held a placard advising jurors that
they had the right to acquit a defendant irrespective of what the judge
says, has won. In an excellent judgment, Mr Justice Saini has dismissed
the application by the Solicitor General to bring proceedings for
contempt against Ms Warner. Her conduct was in no way unlawful.
quote
The trial of a number of defendants affiliated with the environmental
group Insulate Britain was due to begin at Inner London Crown Court on
Monday 27 March 2023.
Between 8am and 9am, in the area near the entrance to that court used by >>> judges and jurors, Ms Warner carried a placard with the handwritten
words: JURORS YOU HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO ACQUIT A DEFENDANT
ACCORDING TO YOUR CONSCIENCE.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/HM-Solicitor-General-v-Warner-Judgment-22.4.24-KB.pdf
A very interesting judgment which raises two questions for me, one of
which is relevant to law in the UK.
Did the Solicitor General press ahead with this case against the
advice of their legal advisors or is the quality of legal advice in
Downing Street so poor that the course of action taken by the SG was
suggested by those advisors and then accepted by the SG?
The Solicitor General (an excellent example of nominative determinism,
going by the name of Robert Courts) is a barrister of twenty years'
standing, so one would hope that he would have been able to determine
by himself that he was advancing a case that was "not even arguable". Presumably he was given orders from above that he should proceed
regardless.
On 22 Apr 2024 at 19:54:11 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-04-22, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 13:50:46 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
Wonderful news! Trudi Warner, who held a placard advising jurors that
they had the right to acquit a defendant irrespective of what the judge >>>> says, has won. In an excellent judgment, Mr Justice Saini has dismissed >>>> the application by the Solicitor General to bring proceedings for
contempt against Ms Warner. Her conduct was in no way unlawful.
quote
The trial of a number of defendants affiliated with the environmental
group Insulate Britain was due to begin at Inner London Crown Court on >>>> Monday 27 March 2023.
Between 8am and 9am, in the area near the entrance to that court used by >>>> judges and jurors, Ms Warner carried a placard with the handwritten
words: JURORS YOU HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO ACQUIT A DEFENDANT
ACCORDING TO YOUR CONSCIENCE.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/HM-Solicitor-General-v-Warner-Judgment-22.4.24-KB.pdf
A very interesting judgment which raises two questions for me, one of
which is relevant to law in the UK.
Did the Solicitor General press ahead with this case against the
advice of their legal advisors or is the quality of legal advice in
Downing Street so poor that the course of action taken by the SG was
suggested by those advisors and then accepted by the SG?
The Solicitor General (an excellent example of nominative determinism,
going by the name of Robert Courts) is a barrister of twenty years'
standing, so one would hope that he would have been able to determine
by himself that he was advancing a case that was "not even arguable".
Presumably he was given orders from above that he should proceed
regardless.
Was there not a time (before Blair) when Government law officers were supposed to have some professional independence, rather then being
craven puppets?
Did the Solicitor General press ahead with this case against the
advice of their legal advisors or is the quality of legal advice in
Downing Street so poor that the course of action taken by the SG was
suggested by those advisors and then accepted by the SG?
The Solicitor General (an excellent example of nominative determinism,
going by the name of Robert Courts) is a barrister of twenty years'
standing, so one would hope that he would have been able to determine
by himself that he was advancing a case that was "not even arguable".
Presumably he was given orders from above that he should proceed
regardless.
Was there not a time (before Blair) when Government law officers were supposed
to have some professional independence, rather then being craven puppets?
Did the Solicitor General press ahead with this case against the
advice of their legal advisors or is the quality of legal advice in
Downing Street so poor that the course of action taken by the SG was
suggested by those advisors and then accepted by the SG?
The Solicitor General (an excellent example of nominative determinism,
going by the name of Robert Courts) is a barrister of twenty years'
standing, so one would hope that he would have been able to determine
by himself that he was advancing a case that was "not even arguable".
Presumably he was given orders from above that he should proceed
regardless.
Was there not a time (before Blair) when Government law officers were supposed
to have some professional independence, rather then being craven puppets?
Surely inciting someone to break their oath as a juror to
"give a true verdict according to the evidence" must have some credence.
Did the Solicitor General press ahead with this case against the
advice of their legal advisors or is the quality of legal advice in
Downing Street so poor that the course of action taken by the SG was
suggested by those advisors and then accepted by the SG?
The Solicitor General (an excellent example of nominative determinism,
going by the name of Robert Courts) is a barrister of twenty years'
standing, so one would hope that he would have been able to determine
by himself that he was advancing a case that was "not even arguable".
Presumably he was given orders from above that he should proceed
regardless.
Was there not a time (before Blair) when Government law officers were
supposed to have some professional independence, rather then being
craven puppets?
Surely inciting someone to break their oath as a juror to
"give a true verdict according to the evidence" must have some credence.
Did the Solicitor General press ahead with this case against the
advice of their legal advisors or is the quality of legal advice in
Downing Street so poor that the course of action taken by the SG was
suggested by those advisors and then accepted by the SG?
The Solicitor General (an excellent example of nominative determinism,
going by the name of Robert Courts) is a barrister of twenty years'
standing, so one would hope that he would have been able to determine
by himself that he was advancing a case that was "not even arguable".
Presumably he was given orders from above that he should proceed
regardless.
Was there not a time (before Blair) when Government law officers were
supposed
to have some professional independence, rather then being craven puppets?
Surely inciting someone to break their oath as a juror to
"give a true verdict according to the evidence" must have some credence.
But it's a very curious prosecution since a plaque on the wall of the Old Bailey, that
central pillar of UK justice, outside which the protesters were protesting, that reads,
for all to see:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:l8pnglF3pp5U3@mid.individual.net...
But it's a very curious prosecution since a plaque on the wall of the
Old Bailey, that central pillar of UK justice, outside which the
protesters were protesting, that reads, for all to see:
In fact the protesters were protesting outside the Inner London Crown Court which is situated on Newington Causeway, a few miles to the North.
In fact the protesters were protesting outside the Inner London Crown Court which is situated on Newington Causeway, a few miles to the North.
On 23/04/2024 17:14, billy bookcase wrote:
In fact the protesters were protesting outside the Inner London Crown Court >> which is situated on Newington Causeway, a few miles to the North.
Geography not your strong subject?
On 23 Apr 2024 at 19:18:27 BST, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 23/04/2024 17:14, billy bookcase wrote:
In fact the protesters were protesting outside the Inner London
Crown Court which is situated on Newington Causeway, a few miles to
the North.
Geography not your strong subject?
I expect he's thinking of Stoke Newington.
On 2024-04-23, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:l8pnglF3pp5U3@mid.individual.net...
But it's a very curious prosecution since a plaque on the wall of the
Old Bailey, that central pillar of UK justice, outside which the
protesters were protesting, that reads, for all to see:
In fact the protesters were protesting outside the Inner London Crown Court >> which is situated on Newington Causeway, a few miles to the North.
So?
Old Bailey yet for some reason are potentially criminal contempt if
displayed at any other court?
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:l8pnglF3pp5U3@mid.individual.net...
But it's a very curious prosecution since a plaque on the wall of the Old Bailey, that
central pillar of UK justice, outside which the protesters were protesting, that reads,
for all to see:
In fact the protesters were protesting outside the Inner London Crown Court which is situated on Newington Causeway, a few miles to the North.
On 23/04/2024 17:14, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:l8pnglF3pp5U3@mid.individual.net...
But it's a very curious prosecution since a plaque on the wall of the Old >>> Bailey, that
central pillar of UK justice, outside which the protesters were protesting, >>> that reads,
for all to see:
In fact the protesters were protesting outside the Inner London Crown Court >> which is situated on Newington Causeway, a few miles to the North.
"At the Old Bailey in London on Monday several people holding placards gathered outside court in support of Warner. Similar actions took place
in Manchester and Bristol."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/25/protests-courts-england-activist-charged-jury-rights-sign
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnv2fqvg.4ab.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2024-04-23, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:l8pnglF3pp5U3@mid.individual.net...
But it's a very curious prosecution since a plaque on the wall of the
Old Bailey, that central pillar of UK justice, outside which the
protesters were protesting, that reads, for all to see:
In fact the protesters were protesting outside the Inner London
Crown Court which is situated on Newington Causeway, a few miles to
the North.
So?
I was merely correcting an erroneous statement.
On 23/04/2024 17:14, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:l8pnglF3pp5U3@mid.individual.net...
But it's a very curious prosecution since a plaque on the wall of the Old Bailey,
that
central pillar of UK justice, outside which the protesters were protesting, that
reads,
for all to see:
In fact the protesters were protesting outside the Inner London Crown Court >> which is situated on Newington Causeway, a few miles to the North.
"At the Old Bailey in London on Monday several people holding placards gathered outside
court in support of Warner. Similar actions took place in Manchester and Bristol."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/25/protests-courts-england-activist-charged-jury-rights-sign
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:l8pnglF3pp5U3@mid.individual.net...
Except that the protesters were not inciting anyone to do anything. They merely held
placards reading:
"Juries have a right to give their verdict according to their convictions".
That's just a statement of a fact. If doing so means they have broken their oath, then
some god or other will doubtless send them to hell, because there's no-one else who can
prove it or take any action.
But it's a very curious prosecution since a plaque on the wall of the Old Bailey, that
central pillar of UK justice, outside which the protesters were protesting, that reads,
for all to see:
On 2024-04-23, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnv2fqvg.4ab.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2024-04-23, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:l8pnglF3pp5U3@mid.individual.net...
But it's a very curious prosecution since a plaque on the wall of the >>>>> Old Bailey, that central pillar of UK justice, outside which the
protesters were protesting, that reads, for all to see:
In fact the protesters were protesting outside the Inner London
Crown Court which is situated on Newington Causeway, a few miles to
the North.
So?
I was merely correcting an erroneous statement.
Apologies, I didn't notice that Norman had specifically claimed
that they were protesting outside the Old Bailey, rather than
merely mentioning the plaque there.
On 2024-04-23, Jeff <jeff@ukra.com> wrote:
Did the Solicitor General press ahead with this case against the
advice of their legal advisors or is the quality of legal advice in
Downing Street so poor that the course of action taken by the SG was >>>>> suggested by those advisors and then accepted by the SG?
The Solicitor General (an excellent example of nominative determinism, >>>> going by the name of Robert Courts) is a barrister of twenty years'
standing, so one would hope that he would have been able to determine
by himself that he was advancing a case that was "not even arguable".
Presumably he was given orders from above that he should proceed
regardless.
Was there not a time (before Blair) when Government law officers were
supposed to have some professional independence, rather then being
craven puppets?
Surely inciting someone to break their oath as a juror to
"give a true verdict according to the evidence" must have some credence.
Part of the reason for the case being dismissed is that she did no such thing. She held a sign that informed them of a legal right they have.
She didn't tell them they should use it.
On 23/04/2024 12:10, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-04-23, Jeff <jeff@ukra.com> wrote:
Did the Solicitor General press ahead with this case against the
advice of their legal advisors or is the quality of legal advice in >>>>>> Downing Street so poor that the course of action taken by the SG was >>>>>> suggested by those advisors and then accepted by the SG?
The Solicitor General (an excellent example of nominative determinism, >>>>> going by the name of Robert Courts) is a barrister of twenty years'
standing, so one would hope that he would have been able to determine >>>>> by himself that he was advancing a case that was "not even arguable". >>>>> Presumably he was given orders from above that he should proceed
regardless.
Was there not a time (before Blair) when Government law officers were
supposed to have some professional independence, rather then being
craven puppets?
Surely inciting someone to break their oath as a juror to
"give a true verdict according to the evidence" must have some credence.
Part of the reason for the case being dismissed is that she did no such
thing. She held a sign that informed them of a legal right they have.
She didn't tell them they should use it.
Well since they took an oath to give a true verdict according to the
evidence I don't see how they have such a right.
On 2024-04-24, Jeff <jeff@ukra.com> wrote:
On 23/04/2024 12:10, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-04-23, Jeff <jeff@ukra.com> wrote:
Part of the reason for the case being dismissed is that she did no suchDid the Solicitor General press ahead with this case against the >>>>>>> advice of their legal advisors or is the quality of legal advice in >>>>>>> Downing Street so poor that the course of action taken by the SG was >>>>>>> suggested by those advisors and then accepted by the SG?
The Solicitor General (an excellent example of nominative determinism, >>>>>> going by the name of Robert Courts) is a barrister of twenty years' >>>>>> standing, so one would hope that he would have been able to determine >>>>>> by himself that he was advancing a case that was "not even arguable". >>>>>> Presumably he was given orders from above that he should proceed
regardless.
Was there not a time (before Blair) when Government law officers were >>>>> supposed to have some professional independence, rather then being
craven puppets?
Surely inciting someone to break their oath as a juror to
"give a true verdict according to the evidence" must have some credence. >>>
thing. She held a sign that informed them of a legal right they have.
She didn't tell them they should use it.
Well since they took an oath to give a true verdict according to the
evidence I don't see how they have such a right.
Well I guess you're gonna just have to take my word (and the word of the judge in this case) for it that they do.
On 24/04/2024 10:47, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-04-24, Jeff <jeff@ukra.com> wrote:
On 23/04/2024 12:10, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-04-23, Jeff <jeff@ukra.com> wrote:
Part of the reason for the case being dismissed is that she did no such >>>> thing. She held a sign that informed them of a legal right they have.Did the Solicitor General press ahead with this case against the >>>>>>>> advice of their legal advisors or is the quality of legal advice in >>>>>>>> Downing Street so poor that the course of action taken by the SG was >>>>>>>> suggested by those advisors and then accepted by the SG?
The Solicitor General (an excellent example of nominative determinism, >>>>>>> going by the name of Robert Courts) is a barrister of twenty years' >>>>>>> standing, so one would hope that he would have been able to determine >>>>>>> by himself that he was advancing a case that was "not even arguable". >>>>>>> Presumably he was given orders from above that he should proceed >>>>>>> regardless.
Was there not a time (before Blair) when Government law officers were >>>>>> supposed to have some professional independence, rather then being >>>>>> craven puppets?
Surely inciting someone to break their oath as a juror to
"give a true verdict according to the evidence" must have some credence. >>>>
She didn't tell them they should use it.
Well since they took an oath to give a true verdict according to the
evidence I don't see how they have such a right.
Well I guess you're gonna just have to take my word (and the word of the
judge in this case) for it that they do.
So the oath is not worth the bit of cardboard that it is written on!!!
Well since they took an oath to give a true verdict according to the
evidence I don't see how they have such a right.
Well I guess you're gonna just have to take my word (and the word of the >>> judge in this case) for it that they do.
So the oath is not worth the bit of cardboard that it is written on!!!
Not if you're worried that the juror secretly used wrongthink in the
privacy of their own head in order to come up with their verdict, no.
If you're worried about something external that's in principle provable,
such as the juror taking bribes from the defendant, then it is.
Well since they took an oath to give a true verdict according to the >>>> evidence I don't see how they have such a right.
Well I guess you're gonna just have to take my word (and the word of the >>> judge in this case) for it that they do.
So the oath is not worth the bit of cardboard that it is written on!!!
Not if you're worried that the juror secretly used wrongthink in the privacy of their own head in order to come up with their verdict, no.
If you're worried about something external that's in principle provable, such as the juror taking bribes from the defendant, then it is.
Well someone trying to influence a juror into @wrongtrhink@ seems pretty close to me.
Well since they took an oath to give a true verdict according to the >>>>> evidence I don't see how they have such a right.
Well I guess you're gonna just have to take my word (and the word of the >>>> judge in this case) for it that they do.
So the oath is not worth the bit of cardboard that it is written on!!!
Not if you're worried that the juror secretly used wrongthink in the
privacy of their own head in order to come up with their verdict, no.
If you're worried about something external that's in principle provable,
such as the juror taking bribes from the defendant, then it is.
Well someone trying to influence a juror into @wrongtrhink@ seems pretty close to me.
Jeff
On 26 Apr 2024 at 10:15:33 BST, "Jeff" <jeff@ukra.com> wrote:
Well since they took an oath to give a true verdict according to the >>>>>> evidence I don't see how they have such a right.
Well I guess you're gonna just have to take my word (and the word of the >>>>> judge in this case) for it that they do.
So the oath is not worth the bit of cardboard that it is written on!!!
Not if you're worried that the juror secretly used wrongthink in the
privacy of their own head in order to come up with their verdict, no.
If you're worried about something external that's in principle provable, >>> such as the juror taking bribes from the defendant, then it is.
Well someone trying to influence a juror into @wrongtrhink@ seems pretty
close to me.
Jeff
Had the placard recommended the jury to acquit then the outcome of the prosecution decision might have been different. A strong point in her favour mentioned in the judgement was that she advertised the right of the jury to make any decision they thought appropriate, without recommending a particular decision.
Read the judgment. There's a fine line between what's permissible and
what isn't. This woman clearly knew exactly where that line was and
stayed just the right side of it.
The two points being:
(a) This not being 1984, it wasn't wrongthink. Her placard was correct
as to what a jury is entitled to do.
(b) She didn't actually take the further step of saying that they should
do it.
Read the judgment. There's a fine line between what's permissible and
what isn't. This woman clearly knew exactly where that line was and
stayed just the right side of it.
The two points being:
(a) This not being 1984, it wasn't wrongthink. Her placard was correct
as to what a jury is entitled to do.
(b) She didn't actually take the further step of saying that they should
do it.
Well from my point of view the jury are not entitled to do it as they
took an oath not to!!
And why does there need to be further action? She made an attempt to
coerce the jury into breaking their oaths, end of story.
On 26/04/2024 11:16, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Apr 2024 at 10:15:33 BST, "Jeff" <jeff@ukra.com> wrote:
Not if you're worried that the juror secretly used wrongthink in theWell since they took an oath to give a true verdict according to the >>>>>>> evidence I don't see how they have such a right.
Well I guess you're gonna just have to take my word (and the word of the >>>>>> judge in this case) for it that they do.
So the oath is not worth the bit of cardboard that it is written on!!! >>>>
privacy of their own head in order to come up with their verdict, no.
If you're worried about something external that's in principle provable, >>>> such as the juror taking bribes from the defendant, then it is.
Well someone trying to influence a juror into @wrongtrhink@ seems pretty >>> close to me.
Jeff
Had the placard recommended the jury to acquit then the outcome of the
prosecution decision might have been different. A strong point in her favour >> mentioned in the judgement was that she advertised the right of the jury to >> make any decision they thought appropriate, without recommending a particular
decision.
But as far as I can see the jury don't have the right to decide
according to their conscience, they took an oath to base their findings
on the evidence.
On 26/04/2024 11:16, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Apr 2024 at 10:15:33 BST, "Jeff" <jeff@ukra.com> wrote:
Not if you're worried that the juror secretly used wrongthink in theWell since they took an oath to give a true verdict according to the >>>>>>> evidence I don't see how they have such a right.
Well I guess you're gonna just have to take my word (and the word
of the
judge in this case) for it that they do.
So the oath is not worth the bit of cardboard that it is written on!!! >>>>
privacy of their own head in order to come up with their verdict, no.
If you're worried about something external that's in principle
provable,
such as the juror taking bribes from the defendant, then it is.
Well someone trying to influence a juror into @wrongtrhink@ seems pretty >>> close to me.
Jeff
Had the placard recommended the jury to acquit then the outcome of the
prosecution decision might have been different. A strong point in her
favour
mentioned in the judgement was that she advertised the right of the
jury to
make any decision they thought appropriate, without recommending a
particular
decision.
But as far as I can see the jury don't have the right to decide
according to their conscience, they took an oath to base their findings
on the evidence.
On 26/04/2024 11:16, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Apr 2024 at 10:15:33 BST, "Jeff" <jeff@ukra.com> wrote:But as far as I can see the jury don't have the right to decide
Well someone trying to influence a juror into @wrongtrhink@ seemsWell since they took an oath to give a true verdict according to >>>>>>> the evidence I don't see how they have such a right.
Well I guess you're gonna just have to take my word (and the word
of the judge in this case) for it that they do.
So the oath is not worth the bit of cardboard that it is written
on!!!
Not if you're worried that the juror secretly used wrongthink in the
privacy of their own head in order to come up with their verdict, no.
If you're worried about something external that's in principle
provable,
such as the juror taking bribes from the defendant, then it is.
pretty close to me.
Jeff
Had the placard recommended the jury to acquit then the outcome of the
prosecution decision might have been different. A strong point in her
favour mentioned in the judgement was that she advertised the right of
the jury to make any decision they thought appropriate, without
recommending a particular decision.
according to their conscience, they took an oath to base their findings
on the evidence.
Read the judgment. There's a fine line between what's permissible and
what isn't. This woman clearly knew exactly where that line was and
stayed just the right side of it.
The two points being:
(a) This not being 1984, it wasn't wrongthink. Her placard was correct
as to what a jury is entitled to do.
(b) She didn't actually take the further step of saying that they should
do it.
Well from my point of view the jury are not entitled to do it as they
took an oath not to!!
And why does there need to be further action? She made an attempt to
coerce the jury into breaking their oaths, end of story.
On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 09:00:54 +0100, Jeff wrote...
Read the judgment. There's a fine line between what's permissible and
what isn't. This woman clearly knew exactly where that line was and
stayed just the right side of it.
The two points being:
(a) This not being 1984, it wasn't wrongthink. Her placard was correct
as to what a jury is entitled to do.
(b) She didn't actually take the further step of saying that they should >>> do it.
Well from my point of view the jury are not entitled to do it as they
took an oath not to!!
Read the judgment, which explains why they are so entitled, despite the
oath.
And why does there need to be further action? She made an attempt to
coerce the jury into breaking their oaths, end of story.
Read the judgment. As I've already said, she carefully didn't take the further step of coercing the jury.
Does anyone know whether juries have the right to find someone guilty even though they believe on the evidence he should be found not guilty? The only way it could come to light is if a juror told the judge this is what was intended by his fellow jurors *before* the verdict was given, I suppose. And I
wonder if they would be right to do so?
On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 09:00:54 +0100, Jeff wrote...
Read the judgment. There's a fine line between what's permissible and
what isn't. This woman clearly knew exactly where that line was and
stayed just the right side of it.
The two points being:
(a) This not being 1984, it wasn't wrongthink. Her placard was correct
as to what a jury is entitled to do.
(b) She didn't actually take the further step of saying that they should >>> do it.
Well from my point of view the jury are not entitled to do it as they
took an oath not to!!
Read the judgment, which explains why they are so entitled, despite the
oath.
And why does there need to be further action? She made an attempt to
coerce the jury into breaking their oaths, end of story.
Read the judgment. As I've already said, she carefully didn't take the further step of coercing the jury.
On 27 Apr 2024 at 22:47:01 BST, "Tim Jackson" <news@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 09:00:54 +0100, Jeff wrote...
Read the judgment. There's a fine line between what's permissible and >>>> what isn't. This woman clearly knew exactly where that line was and
stayed just the right side of it.
The two points being:
(a) This not being 1984, it wasn't wrongthink. Her placard was correct >>>> as to what a jury is entitled to do.
(b) She didn't actually take the further step of saying that they should >>>> do it.
Well from my point of view the jury are not entitled to do it as they
took an oath not to!!
Read the judgment, which explains why they are so entitled, despite the
oath.
And why does there need to be further action? She made an attempt to
coerce the jury into breaking their oaths, end of story.
Read the judgment. As I've already said, she carefully didn't take the
further step of coercing the jury.
Does anyone know whether juries have the right to find someone guilty even though they believe on the evidence he should be found not guilty? The only way it could come to light is if a juror told the judge this is what was intended by his fellow jurors *before* the verdict was given, I suppose. And I
wonder if they would be right to do so?
Does anyone know whether juries have the right to find someone guilty even though they believe on the evidence he should be found not guilty? The only way it could come to light is if a juror told the judge this is what was intended by his fellow jurors *before* the verdict was given, I suppose. And I
wonder if they would be right to do so?
A member of the family, since deceased, told me of a jury he was on. The defendant was
being prosecuted for driving while disqualified, and there was an issue over identity
since he scarpered after being involved in an accident.
The defendant was convicted over his claim that after he was disqualified his car went
to the scrappie and he saw it being lifted into the air with chains through the doors.
The prosecution was appalling and the subject of the damage with chains through doors
wasn't brought up.
The family member had experience of this kind of lift and told the jury of the
consequences, that the doors wouldn't open again and the doors and roof would be
distorted. The jury found the defendant guilty!
On 27/04/2024 23:05, Roger Hayter wrote:
Does anyone know whether juries have the right to find someone guilty even >> though they believe on the evidence he should be found not guilty? The only >> way it could come to light is if a juror told the judge this is what was
intended by his fellow jurors *before* the verdict was given, I suppose. And I
wonder if they would be right to do so?
Juries are their own little Parliaments. They can come to whatever verdicts they like
and there is no-one who can examine the processes by which they do, or what they
'believe'. Jury room discussions are private and sacrosanct. Not even jurors are
allowed to discuss them after the event.
There is plenty of evidence of perverse verdicts. The Peter Melchett case on destruction of GM crops was one. The Colston statue was another. Both were clear
cases of criminal damage on the evidence where the perpetrators were found not guilty.
That's the other way round from what you describe of course. Those are are described
generally as 'perverse' verdicts which are appealable though few actually are.
Verdicts the way you describe are 'miscarriages of justice', such as the Birmingham 6,
Andrew Malkinson, Barry George, Stefan Kiszko and (shortly) Auriol Grey.
There are plenty more.
"Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote in message news:v0k3nv$l97s$1@dont-email.me...
A member of the family, since deceased, told me of a jury he was on. The defendant was
being prosecuted for driving while disqualified, and there was an issue over identity
since he scarpered after being involved in an accident.
The defendant was convicted over his claim that after he was disqualified his car went
to the scrappie and he saw it being lifted into the air with chains through the doors.
The prosecution was appalling and the subject of the damage with chains through doors
wasn't brought up.
The family member had experience of this kind of lift and told the jury of the
consequences, that the doors wouldn't open again and the doors and roof would be
distorted. The jury found the defendant guilty!
Possibly I've totally misunderstood this, but otherwise that raises two questions
a) Why was it necessary, for the prosecution to succeed in establishing that it was his own car he was driving, whilst disqualified ? i.e Why was the identity of the car relevant ?
Unless his defence was based on the proposition that for some reason he could only ever drive his own car
b) Whilst if he "scarpered from the scene, surely the identity of the resulting
driverless car could be readily identified in any case ? So why was it necessary
for him to seek to establish that it wasn't his car, as that had been scrapped ?
"Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
A member of the family, since deceased, told me of a jury he was on. The defendant was
being prosecuted for driving while disqualified, and there was an issue over identity
since he scarpered after being involved in an accident.
The defendant was convicted over his claim that after he was disqualified his car went
to the scrappie and he saw it being lifted into the air with chains through the doors.
The prosecution was appalling and the subject of the damage with chains through doors
wasn't brought up.
The family member had experience of this kind of lift and told the jury of the
consequences, that the doors wouldn't open again and the doors and roof would be
distorted. The jury found the defendant guilty!
Possibly I've totally misunderstood this, but otherwise that raises two questions
a) Why was it necessary, for the prosecution to succeed in establishing that it was his own car he was driving, whilst disqualified ? i.e Why was the identity of the car relevant ?
Unless his defence was based on the proposition that for some reason he could only ever drive his own car
b) Whilst if he "scarpered from the scene, surely the identity of the resulting
driverless car could be readily identified in any case ? So why was it necessary
for him to seek to establish that it wasn't his car, as that had been scrapped ?
On 28/04/2024 09:11, billy bookcase wrote:
"Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote in message news:v0k3nv$l97s$1@dont-email.me...
A member of the family, since deceased, told me of a jury he was on. The defendant
was
being prosecuted for driving while disqualified, and there was an issue over identity
since he scarpered after being involved in an accident.
The defendant was convicted over his claim that after he was disqualified his car
went
to the scrappie and he saw it being lifted into the air with chains through the
doors.
The prosecution was appalling and the subject of the damage with chains through doors
wasn't brought up.
The family member had experience of this kind of lift and told the jury of the
consequences, that the doors wouldn't open again and the doors and roof would be
distorted. The jury found the defendant guilty!
Possibly I've totally misunderstood this, but otherwise that raises two questions
a) Why was it necessary, for the prosecution to succeed in establishing that >> it was his own car he was driving, whilst disqualified ? i.e Why was the
identity of the car relevant ?
Unless his defence was based on the proposition that for some reason he could
only ever drive his own car
As I said it was based over identity. The owner of the car was the defendant
and there was an issue over his identity after he claimed this car was scrapped without
any corroborating paperwork.
The prosecution didn't counter his claim the car was scrapped with any evidence either.
However knowledge of how the car was claimed to be scrapped didn't fit the fact it was
driven after this event.
b) Whilst if he "scarpered from the scene, surely the identity of the resulting
driverless car could be readily identified in any case ? So why was it necessary
for him to seek to establish that it wasn't his car, as that had been scrapped ?
There was a witness who gave details of the driver.
I presume sufficient details for the prosecution to take place. The fact he was a
marked man with numerous offences read out after the conviction likely helped the
police pin this on him.
What I find interesting, and this goes for the likes of Ian Huntly and others who lose
all credibility through a compulsion to tell lies, is that if you come over as a liar,
you're stuffed.
On 28/04/2024 09:11 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
A member of the family, since deceased, told me of a jury he was on. The defendant
was
being prosecuted for driving while disqualified, and there was an issue over identity
since he scarpered after being involved in an accident.
The defendant was convicted over his claim that after he was disqualified his car
went
to the scrappie and he saw it being lifted into the air with chains through the
doors.
The prosecution was appalling and the subject of the damage with chains through doors
wasn't brought up.
The family member had experience of this kind of lift and told the jury of the
consequences, that the doors wouldn't open again and the doors and roof would be
distorted. The jury found the defendant guilty!
Possibly I've totally misunderstood this, but otherwise that raises two questions
a) Why was it necessary, for the prosecution to succeed in establishing that >> it was his own car he was driving, whilst disqualified ? i.e Why was the
identity of the car relevant ?
Presumably, with his not having been apprehended in close contact with the car seen
being driven, the identification of that car as belonging to him was the crucial
prosecution evidential link.
Unless his defence was based on the proposition that for some reason he could
only ever drive his own car
Not necessary.
b) Whilst if he "scarpered from the scene, surely the identity of the resulting
driverless car could be readily identified in any case ? So why was it necessary
for him to seek to establish that it wasn't his car, as that had been scrapped ?
If he could show that the car witnessed in use was not his car and never had been his
car (whether or not with cloned plates), the prosecution's main case component was
invalidated.
If he wasn't guilty, though, I'd have expected him to produce a receipt from the scrap
yard, or even an employee of the business to give the relevant evidence.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:l98090F9jbkU1@mid.individual.net...
On 28/04/2024 09:11 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
A member of the family, since deceased, told me of a jury he was on. The >>>> defendant
was
being prosecuted for driving while disqualified, and there was an issue >>>> over identity
since he scarpered after being involved in an accident.
The defendant was convicted over his claim that after he was disqualified >>>> his car
went
to the scrappie and he saw it being lifted into the air with chains through the
doors.
The prosecution was appalling and the subject of the damage with chains >>>> through doors
wasn't brought up.
The family member had experience of this kind of lift and told the jury of the
consequences, that the doors wouldn't open again and the doors and roof >>>> would be
distorted. The jury found the defendant guilty!
Possibly I've totally misunderstood this, but otherwise that raises two
questions
a) Why was it necessary, for the prosecution to succeed in establishing that
it was his own car he was driving, whilst disqualified ? i.e Why was the >>> identity of the car relevant ?
Presumably, with his not having been apprehended in close contact with the >> car seen
being driven, the identification of that car as belonging to him was the
crucial
prosecution evidential link.
But if it wasn't his car, identifiable by the registration number if nothing else, how
come he was being prosecuted at all ?
Or if it was his car, why did he lie and claim it had been crushed ?
Unless his defence was based on the proposition that for some reason he could
only ever drive his own car
Not necessary.
So why was he so insistant that his car had been crushed ?
b) Whilst if he "scarpered from the scene, surely the identity of the resulting
driverless car could be readily identified in any case ? So why was it
necessary
for him to seek to establish that it wasn't his car, as that had been
scrapped ?
If he could show that the car witnessed in use was not his car and never had >> been his
car (whether or not with cloned plates), the prosecution's main case
component was
invalidated.
If he wasn't guilty, though, I'd have expected him to produce a receipt from >> the scrap
yard, or even an employee of the business to give the relevant evidence.
Eh ?
The registration number of the car he claims was crushed is on record at
the DVLA. i.e Is known
The registration number of the car he supposedly abandoned is known.
If they're not the same, as they presumably aren't then what would
producing a receipt from the scrapyard achieve ?
bb
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:l98090F9jbkU1@mid.individual.net...
On 28/04/2024 09:11 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
A member of the family, since deceased, told me of a jury he was on. The defendant
was
being prosecuted for driving while disqualified, and there was an issue over identity
since he scarpered after being involved in an accident.
The defendant was convicted over his claim that after he was disqualified his car
went
to the scrappie and he saw it being lifted into the air with chains through the
doors.
The prosecution was appalling and the subject of the damage with chains through doors
wasn't brought up.
The family member had experience of this kind of lift and told the jury of the
consequences, that the doors wouldn't open again and the doors and roof would be
distorted. The jury found the defendant guilty!
Possibly I've totally misunderstood this, but otherwise that raises two questions
a) Why was it necessary, for the prosecution to succeed in establishing that
it was his own car he was driving, whilst disqualified ? i.e Why was the >>> identity of the car relevant ?
Presumably, with his not having been apprehended in close contact with the car seen
being driven, the identification of that car as belonging to him was the crucial
prosecution evidential link.
But if it wasn't his car, identifiable by the registration number if nothing else, how
come he was being prosecuted at all ?
Or if it was his car, why did he lie and claim it had been crushed ?
Unless his defence was based on the proposition that for some reason he could
only ever drive his own car
Not necessary.
So why was he so insistant that his car had been crushed ?
b) Whilst if he "scarpered from the scene, surely the identity of the resulting
driverless car could be readily identified in any case ? So why was it necessary
for him to seek to establish that it wasn't his car, as that had been scrapped ?
If he could show that the car witnessed in use was not his car and never had been his
car (whether or not with cloned plates), the prosecution's main case component was
invalidated.
If he wasn't guilty, though, I'd have expected him to produce a receipt from the scrap
yard, or even an employee of the business to give the relevant evidence.
Eh ?
The registration number of the car he claims was crushed is on record at
the DVLA. i.e Is known
The registration number of the car he supposedly abandoned is known.
If they're not the same, as they presumably aren't then what would
producing a receipt from the scrapyard achieve ?
On 29 Apr 2024 at 13:48:28 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l98090F9jbkU1@mid.individual.net...
On 28/04/2024 09:11 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
A member of the family, since deceased, told me of a jury he was on. The >>>>> defendant
was
being prosecuted for driving while disqualified, and there was an issue >>>>> over identity
since he scarpered after being involved in an accident.
The defendant was convicted over his claim that after he was disqualified >>>>> his car
went
to the scrappie and he saw it being lifted into the air with chains through the
doors.
The prosecution was appalling and the subject of the damage with chains >>>>> through doors
wasn't brought up.
The family member had experience of this kind of lift and told the jury of the
consequences, that the doors wouldn't open again and the doors and roof >>>>> would be
distorted. The jury found the defendant guilty!
Possibly I've totally misunderstood this, but otherwise that raises two >>>> questions
a) Why was it necessary, for the prosecution to succeed in establishing that
it was his own car he was driving, whilst disqualified ? i.e Why was the >>>> identity of the car relevant ?
Presumably, with his not having been apprehended in close contact with the >>> car seen
being driven, the identification of that car as belonging to him was the >>> crucial
prosecution evidential link.
But if it wasn't his car, identifiable by the registration number if nothing >> else, how
come he was being prosecuted at all ?
Or if it was his car, why did he lie and claim it had been crushed ?
Unless his defence was based on the proposition that for some reason he could
only ever drive his own car
Not necessary.
So why was he so insistant that his car had been crushed ?
b) Whilst if he "scarpered from the scene, surely the identity of the resulting
driverless car could be readily identified in any case ? So why was it >>>> necessary
for him to seek to establish that it wasn't his car, as that had been
scrapped ?
If he could show that the car witnessed in use was not his car and never had
been his
car (whether or not with cloned plates), the prosecution's main case
component was
invalidated.
If he wasn't guilty, though, I'd have expected him to produce a receipt from
the scrap
yard, or even an employee of the business to give the relevant evidence.
Eh ?
The registration number of the car he claims was crushed is on record at
the DVLA. i.e Is known
The registration number of the car he supposedly abandoned is known.
If they're not the same, as they presumably aren't then what would
producing a receipt from the scrapyard achieve ?
bb
The story is presumably that his car was rescued from the scrapyard by someone
nefarious, and that is the person who was seen running away from what is indisputably the car he used own.
On 29 Apr 2024 at 13:48:28 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l98090F9jbkU1@mid.individual.net...
On 28/04/2024 09:11 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
A member of the family, since deceased, told me of a jury he was on. The >>>>> defendant
was
being prosecuted for driving while disqualified, and there was an issue >>>>> over identity
since he scarpered after being involved in an accident.
The defendant was convicted over his claim that after he was disqualified >>>>> his car
went
to the scrappie and he saw it being lifted into the air with chains through the
doors.
The prosecution was appalling and the subject of the damage with chains >>>>> through doors
wasn't brought up.
The family member had experience of this kind of lift and told the jury of the
consequences, that the doors wouldn't open again and the doors and roof >>>>> would be
distorted. The jury found the defendant guilty!
Possibly I've totally misunderstood this, but otherwise that raises two >>>> questions
a) Why was it necessary, for the prosecution to succeed in establishing that
it was his own car he was driving, whilst disqualified ? i.e Why was the >>>> identity of the car relevant ?
Presumably, with his not having been apprehended in close contact with the >>> car seen
being driven, the identification of that car as belonging to him was the >>> crucial
prosecution evidential link.
But if it wasn't his car, identifiable by the registration number if nothing >> else, how
come he was being prosecuted at all ?
Or if it was his car, why did he lie and claim it had been crushed ?
Unless his defence was based on the proposition that for some reason he could
only ever drive his own car
Not necessary.
So why was he so insistant that his car had been crushed ?
b) Whilst if he "scarpered from the scene, surely the identity of the resulting
driverless car could be readily identified in any case ? So why was it >>>> necessary
for him to seek to establish that it wasn't his car, as that had been
scrapped ?
If he could show that the car witnessed in use was not his car and never had
been his
car (whether or not with cloned plates), the prosecution's main case
component was
invalidated.
If he wasn't guilty, though, I'd have expected him to produce a receipt from
the scrap
yard, or even an employee of the business to give the relevant evidence.
Eh ?
The registration number of the car he claims was crushed is on record at
the DVLA. i.e Is known
The registration number of the car he supposedly abandoned is known.
If they're not the same, as they presumably aren't then what would
producing a receipt from the scrapyard achieve ?
bb
The story is presumably that his car was rescued from the scrapyard by someone
nefarious, and that is the person who was seen running away from what is indisputably the car he used own.
"Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 28/04/2024 09:11, billy bookcase wrote:
"Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
A member of the family, since deceased, told me of a jury he was on. The defendant
was
being prosecuted for driving while disqualified, and there was an issue over identity
since he scarpered after being involved in an accident.
The defendant was convicted over his claim that after he was disqualified his car
went
to the scrappie and he saw it being lifted into the air with chains through the
doors.
The prosecution was appalling and the subject of the damage with chains through doors
wasn't brought up.
The family member had experience of this kind of lift and told the jury of the
consequences, that the doors wouldn't open again and the doors and roof would be
distorted. The jury found the defendant guilty!
Possibly I've totally misunderstood this, but otherwise that raises two questions
a) Why was it necessary, for the prosecution to succeed in establishing that
it was his own car he was driving, whilst disqualified ? i.e Why was the >>> identity of the car relevant ?
Unless his defence was based on the proposition that for some reason he could
only ever drive his own car
As I said it was based over identity. The owner of the car was the defendant
Which car are we talking about ?
and there was an issue over his identity after he claimed this car was scrapped without
any corroborating paperwork.
The prosecution didn't counter his claim the car was scrapped with any evidence either.
(a)
However knowledge of how the car was claimed to be scrapped didn't fit the fact it was
driven after this event.
So that car he claimed had been scrapped, lets call it reg no XYZ 789
was the car he scarpered from ?
You do see the problem here, I take it ?
So how can he claim it had been scrapped ?
b) Whilst if he "scarpered from the scene, surely the identity of the resulting
driverless car could be readily identified in any case ? So why was it necessary
for him to seek to establish that it wasn't his car, as that had been scrapped ?
There was a witness who gave details of the driver.
But regardless of that, the identity of the car he scarpered from will have been known.
So that the witness said the driver scarpered from car lets say reg no ABC 123.
While the defendant was claiming, that his own car XYZ 789 had been scrapped.
But why couldn't the defendant have scarpered from ABC 123 ?
I presume sufficient details for the prosecution to take place. The fact he was a
marked man with numerous offences read out after the conviction likely helped the
police pin this on him.
What I find interesting, and this goes for the likes of Ian Huntly and others who lose
all credibility through a compulsion to tell lies, is that if you come over as a liar,
you're stuffed.
But if as you claim above (a), the car was driven after he claimed it had been
scrapped, then he definitely was lying, wasn't he ?
On 29/04/2024 01:48 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l98090F9jbkU1@mid.individual.net...
On 28/04/2024 09:11 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
A member of the family, since deceased, told me of a jury he was on. The defendant
was
being prosecuted for driving while disqualified, and there was an issue over
identity
since he scarpered after being involved in an accident.
The defendant was convicted over his claim that after he was disqualified his car
went
to the scrappie and he saw it being lifted into the air with chains through the
doors.
The prosecution was appalling and the subject of the damage with chains through
doors
wasn't brought up.
The family member had experience of this kind of lift and told the jury of the
consequences, that the doors wouldn't open again and the doors and roof would be
distorted. The jury found the defendant guilty!
Possibly I've totally misunderstood this, but otherwise that raises two questions
a) Why was it necessary, for the prosecution to succeed in establishing that
it was his own car he was driving, whilst disqualified ? i.e Why was the >>>> identity of the car relevant ?
Presumably, with his not having been apprehended in close contact with the car seen
being driven, the identification of that car as belonging to him was the crucial
prosecution evidential link.
But if it wasn't his car, identifiable by the registration number if nothing else, how
come he was being prosecuted at all ?
I don't think that has been explained in the OP or the thread.
Or if it was his car, why did he lie and claim it had been crushed ?
Did he?
Unless his defence was based on the proposition that for some reason he could
only ever drive his own car
Not necessary.
So why was he so insistant that his car had been crushed ?
One possibility - I throw it out for discussion - perhaps that was the truth?
Cars DO get crushed.
b) Whilst if he "scarpered from the scene, surely the identity of the resulting
driverless car could be readily identified in any case ? So why was it necessary
for him to seek to establish that it wasn't his car, as that had been scrapped ?
If he could show that the car witnessed in use was not his car and never had been his
car (whether or not with cloned plates), the prosecution's main case component was
invalidated.
If he wasn't guilty, though, I'd have expected him to produce a receipt from the
scrap
yard, or even an employee of the business to give the relevant evidence.
Eh ?
The registration number of the car he claims was crushed is on record at
the DVLA. i.e Is known
The registration number of the car he supposedly abandoned is known.
The registration number does not definitively identify a motor vehicle. The plates can
be cloned. The VIN would be a better source of proof.
If they're not the same, as they presumably aren't then what would
producing a receipt from the scrapyard achieve ?
It would lend verisimilitude to the defence that the vehicle had been scrapped /
crushed / broken for parts.
On 29/04/2024 02:46 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 29 Apr 2024 at 13:48:28 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l98090F9jbkU1@mid.individual.net...
On 28/04/2024 09:11 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
A member of the family, since deceased, told me of a jury he was on. The >>>>>> defendant
was
being prosecuted for driving while disqualified, and there was an issue >>>>>> over identity
since he scarpered after being involved in an accident.
The defendant was convicted over his claim that after he was disqualified
his car
went
to the scrappie and he saw it being lifted into the air with chains through the
doors.
The prosecution was appalling and the subject of the damage with chains >>>>>> through doors
wasn't brought up.
The family member had experience of this kind of lift and told the jury of the
consequences, that the doors wouldn't open again and the doors and roof >>>>>> would be
distorted. The jury found the defendant guilty!
Possibly I've totally misunderstood this, but otherwise that raises two >>>>> questions
a) Why was it necessary, for the prosecution to succeed in establishing that
it was his own car he was driving, whilst disqualified ? i.e Why was the >>>>> identity of the car relevant ?
Presumably, with his not having been apprehended in close contact with the >>>> car seen
being driven, the identification of that car as belonging to him was the >>>> crucial
prosecution evidential link.
But if it wasn't his car, identifiable by the registration number if nothing
else, how
come he was being prosecuted at all ?
Or if it was his car, why did he lie and claim it had been crushed ?
Unless his defence was based on the proposition that for some reason he could
only ever drive his own car
Not necessary.
So why was he so insistant that his car had been crushed ?
Eh ?
b) Whilst if he "scarpered from the scene, surely the identity of the resulting
driverless car could be readily identified in any case ? So why was it >>>>> necessary
for him to seek to establish that it wasn't his car, as that had been >>>>> scrapped ?
If he could show that the car witnessed in use was not his car and never had
been his
car (whether or not with cloned plates), the prosecution's main case
component was
invalidated.
If he wasn't guilty, though, I'd have expected him to produce a receipt from
the scrap
yard, or even an employee of the business to give the relevant evidence. >>>
The registration number of the car he claims was crushed is on record at >>> the DVLA. i.e Is known
The registration number of the car he supposedly abandoned is known.
If they're not the same, as they presumably aren't then what would
producing a receipt from the scrapyard achieve ?
bb
The story is presumably that his car was rescued from the scrapyard by someone
nefarious, and that is the person who was seen running away from what is
indisputably the car he used own.
Doesn't have to be the car. Could have just been the number plates.
On 29 Apr 2024 at 16:38:51 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 29/04/2024 02:46 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 29 Apr 2024 at 13:48:28 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l98090F9jbkU1@mid.individual.net...
On 28/04/2024 09:11 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
A member of the family, since deceased, told me of a jury he was on. The
defendant
was
being prosecuted for driving while disqualified, and there was an issue >>>>>>> over identity
since he scarpered after being involved in an accident.
The defendant was convicted over his claim that after he was disqualified
his car
went
to the scrappie and he saw it being lifted into the air with chains through the
doors.
The prosecution was appalling and the subject of the damage with chains >>>>>>> through doors
wasn't brought up.
The family member had experience of this kind of lift and told the jury of the
consequences, that the doors wouldn't open again and the doors and roof >>>>>>> would be
distorted. The jury found the defendant guilty!
Possibly I've totally misunderstood this, but otherwise that raises two >>>>>> questions
a) Why was it necessary, for the prosecution to succeed in establishing that
it was his own car he was driving, whilst disqualified ? i.e Why was the >>>>>> identity of the car relevant ?
Presumably, with his not having been apprehended in close contact with the
car seen
being driven, the identification of that car as belonging to him was the >>>>> crucial
prosecution evidential link.
But if it wasn't his car, identifiable by the registration number if nothing
else, how
come he was being prosecuted at all ?
Or if it was his car, why did he lie and claim it had been crushed ?
Unless his defence was based on the proposition that for some reason he could
only ever drive his own car
Not necessary.
So why was he so insistant that his car had been crushed ?
Eh ?
b) Whilst if he "scarpered from the scene, surely the identity of the resulting
driverless car could be readily identified in any case ? So why was it >>>>>> necessary
for him to seek to establish that it wasn't his car, as that had been >>>>>> scrapped ?
If he could show that the car witnessed in use was not his car and never had
been his
car (whether or not with cloned plates), the prosecution's main case >>>>> component was
invalidated.
If he wasn't guilty, though, I'd have expected him to produce a receipt from
the scrap
yard, or even an employee of the business to give the relevant evidence. >>>>
The registration number of the car he claims was crushed is on record at >>>> the DVLA. i.e Is known
The registration number of the car he supposedly abandoned is known.
If they're not the same, as they presumably aren't then what would
producing a receipt from the scrapyard achieve ?
bb
The story is presumably that his car was rescued from the scrapyard by someone
nefarious, and that is the person who was seen running away from what is >>> indisputably the car he used own.
Doesn't have to be the car. Could have just been the number plates.
I am fairly sure the police would have taken the precaution of checking the VIN - the defendant is likely to know about cloned numberplates, especially if
they could provide a defence.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:l99t72Fib24U1@mid.individual.net...
On 29/04/2024 01:48 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l98090F9jbkU1@mid.individual.net...
On 28/04/2024 09:11 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
A member of the family, since deceased, told me of a jury he was on. The defendant
was
being prosecuted for driving while disqualified, and there was an issue over
identity
since he scarpered after being involved in an accident.
The defendant was convicted over his claim that after he was disqualified his car
went
to the scrappie and he saw it being lifted into the air with chains through the
doors.
The prosecution was appalling and the subject of the damage with chains through
doors
wasn't brought up.
The family member had experience of this kind of lift and told the jury of the
consequences, that the doors wouldn't open again and the doors and roof would be
distorted. The jury found the defendant guilty!
Possibly I've totally misunderstood this, but otherwise that raises two questions
a) Why was it necessary, for the prosecution to succeed in establishing that
it was his own car he was driving, whilst disqualified ? i.e Why was the >>>>> identity of the car relevant ?
Presumably, with his not having been apprehended in close contact with the car seen
being driven, the identification of that car as belonging to him was the crucial
prosecution evidential link.
But if it wasn't his car, identifiable by the registration number if nothing else, how
come he was being prosecuted at all ?
I don't think that has been explained in the OP or the thread.
Or if it was his car, why did he lie and claim it had been crushed ?
Did he?
Yes.
Unless his defence was based on the proposition that for some reason he could
only ever drive his own car
Not necessary.
So why was he so insistant that his car had been crushed ?
One possibility - I throw it out for discussion - perhaps that was the truth?
Cars DO get crushed.
Obviously
Howver the question was "why was he so insistent", not the probability of his claim
being true.
Eh ?b) Whilst if he "scarpered from the scene, surely the identity of the resulting
driverless car could be readily identified in any case ? So why was it necessary
for him to seek to establish that it wasn't his car, as that had been scrapped ?
If he could show that the car witnessed in use was not his car and never had been his
car (whether or not with cloned plates), the prosecution's main case component was
invalidated.
If he wasn't guilty, though, I'd have expected him to produce a receipt from the
scrap
yard, or even an employee of the business to give the relevant evidence. >>>
The registration number of the car he claims was crushed is on record at >>> the DVLA. i.e Is known
The registration number of the car he supposedly abandoned is known.
The registration number does not definitively identify a motor vehicle. The plates can
be cloned. The VIN would be a better source of proof.
Right. So he got hold of an identical model and cloned the plates of a car he'd had scrapped ?
Given he'd been disqualified from driving and was presumably on record as
the registerd keeper of the old car that would hardly be the smartest of moves
dont you think ?
If they're not the same, as they presumably aren't then what would
producing a receipt from the scrapyard achieve ?
It would lend verisimilitude to the defence that the vehicle had been scrapped /
crushed / broken for parts.
But is they're not the same car, then what difference would it make if his own
car had been scrapped, or not ?
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:9841265851.5b08cdd6@uninhabited.net...
On 29 Apr 2024 at 13:48:28 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l98090F9jbkU1@mid.individual.net...
On 28/04/2024 09:11 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
A member of the family, since deceased, told me of a jury he was on. The >>>>>> defendant
was
being prosecuted for driving while disqualified, and there was an issue >>>>>> over identity
since he scarpered after being involved in an accident.
The defendant was convicted over his claim that after he was disqualified
his car
went
to the scrappie and he saw it being lifted into the air with chains through the
doors.
The prosecution was appalling and the subject of the damage with chains >>>>>> through doors
wasn't brought up.
The family member had experience of this kind of lift and told the jury of the
consequences, that the doors wouldn't open again and the doors and roof >>>>>> would be
distorted. The jury found the defendant guilty!
Possibly I've totally misunderstood this, but otherwise that raises two >>>>> questions
a) Why was it necessary, for the prosecution to succeed in establishing that
it was his own car he was driving, whilst disqualified ? i.e Why was the >>>>> identity of the car relevant ?
Presumably, with his not having been apprehended in close contact with the >>>> car seen
being driven, the identification of that car as belonging to him was the >>>> crucial
prosecution evidential link.
But if it wasn't his car, identifiable by the registration number if nothing
else, how
come he was being prosecuted at all ?
Or if it was his car, why did he lie and claim it had been crushed ?
Unless his defence was based on the proposition that for some reason he could
only ever drive his own car
Not necessary.
So why was he so insistant that his car had been crushed ?
Eh ?
b) Whilst if he "scarpered from the scene, surely the identity of the resulting
driverless car could be readily identified in any case ? So why was it >>>>> necessary
for him to seek to establish that it wasn't his car, as that had been >>>>> scrapped ?
If he could show that the car witnessed in use was not his car and never had
been his
car (whether or not with cloned plates), the prosecution's main case
component was
invalidated.
If he wasn't guilty, though, I'd have expected him to produce a receipt from
the scrap
yard, or even an employee of the business to give the relevant evidence. >>>
The registration number of the car he claims was crushed is on record at >>> the DVLA. i.e Is known
The registration number of the car he supposedly abandoned is known.
If they're not the same, as they presumably aren't then what would
producing a receipt from the scrapyard achieve ?
bb
The story is presumably that his car was rescued from the scrapyard by someone
nefarious, and that is the person who was seen running away from what is
indisputably the car he used own.
So the car he claimed was crushed, wasn't crushed at all ?
So what was all the stuff about chains through the doors about ? Which ISTR was
the main thrust of his defence ?
And surely if they produced photos of the car taken at the scene how can he still
claim it was crushed ? If they'd put chains through the doors which completely
buckled the roof ?
On 29/04/2024 05:54 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 29 Apr 2024 at 16:38:51 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 29/04/2024 02:46 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 29 Apr 2024 at 13:48:28 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l98090F9jbkU1@mid.individual.net...
On 28/04/2024 09:11 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
A member of the family, since deceased, told me of a jury he was >>>>>>>> on. The
defendant
was
being prosecuted for driving while disqualified, and there was >>>>>>>> an issue
over identity
since he scarpered after being involved in an accident.
The defendant was convicted over his claim that after he was
disqualified
his car
went
to the scrappie and he saw it being lifted into the air with
chains through the
doors.
The prosecution was appalling and the subject of the damage with >>>>>>>> chains
through doors
wasn't brought up.
The family member had experience of this kind of lift and told >>>>>>>> the jury of the
consequences, that the doors wouldn't open again and the doors >>>>>>>> and roof
would be
distorted. The jury found the defendant guilty!
Possibly I've totally misunderstood this, but otherwise that
raises two
questions
a) Why was it necessary, for the prosecution to succeed in
establishing that
it was his own car he was driving, whilst disqualified ? i.e Why >>>>>>> was the
identity of the car relevant ?
Presumably, with his not having been apprehended in close contact
with the
car seen
being driven, the identification of that car as belonging to him
was the
crucial
prosecution evidential link.
But if it wasn't his car, identifiable by the registration number
if nothing
else, how
come he was being prosecuted at all ?
Or if it was his car, why did he lie and claim it had been crushed ? >>>>>
Unless his defence was based on the proposition that for some
reason he could
only ever drive his own car
Not necessary.
So why was he so insistant that his car had been crushed ?
b) Whilst if he "scarpered from the scene, surely the identity of >>>>>>> the resulting
driverless car could be readily identified in any case ? So why
was it
necessary
for him to seek to establish that it wasn't his car, as that had >>>>>>> been
scrapped ?
If he could show that the car witnessed in use was not his car and >>>>>> never had
been his
car (whether or not with cloned plates), the prosecution's main case >>>>>> component was
invalidated.
If he wasn't guilty, though, I'd have expected him to produce a
receipt from
the scrap
yard, or even an employee of the business to give the relevant
evidence.
Eh ?
The registration number of the car he claims was crushed is on
record at
the DVLA. i.e Is known
The registration number of the car he supposedly abandoned is known. >>>>>
If they're not the same, as they presumably aren't then what would
producing a receipt from the scrapyard achieve ?
bb
The story is presumably that his car was rescued from the scrapyard
by someone
nefarious, and that is the person who was seen running away from
what is
indisputably the car he used own.
Doesn't have to be the car. Could have just been the number plates.
I am fairly sure the police would have taken the precaution of
checking the
VIN - the defendant is likely to know about cloned numberplates,
especially if
they could provide a defence.
As I said, there are things that were not explained in the OP or any comments.
But even so, how does the VIN place the defendant at the scene?
On 29/04/2024 15:29, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:9841265851.5b08cdd6@uninhabited.net...
On 29 Apr 2024 at 13:48:28 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l98090F9jbkU1@mid.individual.net...
On 28/04/2024 09:11 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
A member of the family, since deceased, told me of a jury he was on. The
defendant
was
being prosecuted for driving while disqualified, and there was an issue >>>>>>> over identity
since he scarpered after being involved in an accident.
The defendant was convicted over his claim that after he was disqualified
his car
went
to the scrappie and he saw it being lifted into the air with chains through the
doors.
The prosecution was appalling and the subject of the damage with chains >>>>>>> through doors
wasn't brought up.
The family member had experience of this kind of lift and told the jury of the
consequences, that the doors wouldn't open again and the doors and roof >>>>>>> would be
distorted. The jury found the defendant guilty!
Possibly I've totally misunderstood this, but otherwise that raises two >>>>>> questions
a) Why was it necessary, for the prosecution to succeed in establishing that
it was his own car he was driving, whilst disqualified ? i.e Why was the >>>>>> identity of the car relevant ?
Presumably, with his not having been apprehended in close contact with the
car seen
being driven, the identification of that car as belonging to him was the >>>>> crucial
prosecution evidential link.
But if it wasn't his car, identifiable by the registration number if nothing
else, how
come he was being prosecuted at all ?
Or if it was his car, why did he lie and claim it had been crushed ?
Unless his defence was based on the proposition that for some reason he could
only ever drive his own car
Not necessary.
So why was he so insistant that his car had been crushed ?
Eh ?
b) Whilst if he "scarpered from the scene, surely the identity of the resulting
driverless car could be readily identified in any case ? So why was it >>>>>> necessary
for him to seek to establish that it wasn't his car, as that had been >>>>>> scrapped ?
If he could show that the car witnessed in use was not his car and never had
been his
car (whether or not with cloned plates), the prosecution's main case >>>>> component was
invalidated.
If he wasn't guilty, though, I'd have expected him to produce a receipt from
the scrap
yard, or even an employee of the business to give the relevant evidence. >>>>
The registration number of the car he claims was crushed is on record at >>>> the DVLA. i.e Is known
The registration number of the car he supposedly abandoned is known.
If they're not the same, as they presumably aren't then what would
producing a receipt from the scrapyard achieve ?
bb
The story is presumably that his car was rescued from the scrapyard by someone
nefarious, and that is the person who was seen running away from what is >>> indisputably the car he used own.
So the car he claimed was crushed, wasn't crushed at all ?
So what was all the stuff about chains through the doors about ? Which ISTR was
the main thrust of his defence ?
He claimed he scrapped it in such a way the jurors believed it would not be drivable after.
And surely if they produced photos of the car taken at the scene how can he still
claim it was crushed ? If they'd put chains through the doors which completely
buckled the roof ?
He didn't claim it was crushed. No one claimed it was crushed. He simply said it was
craned and lifted with chains through the doors.
"Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote in message news:v0riaj$2lcuf$1@dont-email.me...
On 29/04/2024 15:29, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:9841265851.5b08cdd6@uninhabited.net...
On 29 Apr 2024 at 13:48:28 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>>
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:l98090F9jbkU1@mid.individual.net...
On 28/04/2024 09:11 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
A member of the family, since deceased, told me of a jury he was on. The
defendant
was
being prosecuted for driving while disqualified, and there was an issue
over identity
since he scarpered after being involved in an accident.
The defendant was convicted over his claim that after he was disqualified
his car
went
to the scrappie and he saw it being lifted into the air with chains through the
doors.
The prosecution was appalling and the subject of the damage with chains
through doors
wasn't brought up.
The family member had experience of this kind of lift and told the jury of the
consequences, that the doors wouldn't open again and the doors and roof
would be
distorted. The jury found the defendant guilty!
Possibly I've totally misunderstood this, but otherwise that raises two >>>>>>> questions
a) Why was it necessary, for the prosecution to succeed in establishing that
it was his own car he was driving, whilst disqualified ? i.e Why was the
identity of the car relevant ?
Presumably, with his not having been apprehended in close contact with the
car seen
being driven, the identification of that car as belonging to him was the >>>>>> crucial
prosecution evidential link.
But if it wasn't his car, identifiable by the registration number if nothing
else, how
come he was being prosecuted at all ?
Or if it was his car, why did he lie and claim it had been crushed ? >>>>>
Unless his defence was based on the proposition that for some reason he could
only ever drive his own car
Not necessary.
So why was he so insistant that his car had been crushed ?
Eh ?
b) Whilst if he "scarpered from the scene, surely the identity of the resulting
driverless car could be readily identified in any case ? So why was it >>>>>>> necessary
for him to seek to establish that it wasn't his car, as that had been >>>>>>> scrapped ?
If he could show that the car witnessed in use was not his car and never had
been his
car (whether or not with cloned plates), the prosecution's main case >>>>>> component was
invalidated.
If he wasn't guilty, though, I'd have expected him to produce a receipt from
the scrap
yard, or even an employee of the business to give the relevant evidence. >>>>>
The registration number of the car he claims was crushed is on record at >>>>> the DVLA. i.e Is known
The registration number of the car he supposedly abandoned is known. >>>>>
If they're not the same, as they presumably aren't then what would
producing a receipt from the scrapyard achieve ?
bb
The story is presumably that his car was rescued from the scrapyard by someone
nefarious, and that is the person who was seen running away from what is >>>> indisputably the car he used own.
So the car he claimed was crushed, wasn't crushed at all ?
So what was all the stuff about chains through the doors about ? Which ISTR was
the main thrust of his defence ?
He claimed he scrapped it in such a way the jurors believed it would not be >> drivable after.
ITYM he claimed he scrapped it in such a way *he hoped* the jurors believed it
would not be drivable after.
Given he was convcted obviously his hopes were in vain.
And surely if they produced photos of the car taken at the scene how can he still
claim it was crushed ? If they'd put chains through the doors which completely
buckled the roof ?
He didn't claim it was crushed. No one claimed it was crushed. He simply said it was
craned and lifted with chains through the doors.
Well yes. That was *that* car.
But what about the car involved in the accident that he was supposed to have scarpered from ?
Why would he want to try and make out that that was the car that had been scrapped ?
When it will have been sitting by the roadside after
the accident easily identifiable.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 54:24:07 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,355,326 |
