General News Thread

[Trav Le Bleu]

.

Edited 30 July 2025 by Trav Le Bleu
Repeat post

[DJ Barry Hammond]

1 hour ago, Spudulike said:

By disclosing good character tells the jury the accused have no previous convictions. Influenced?

Yeah the two aren’t the same are they.

 

It’s a much bigger issue for a jury to consider a case purely on that case’s merits if previous convictions were allowed to be known.

 

You know - the common idea of “well if he was guilty of that, he’s guilty of this too.”

 

Providing evidence of good character on the other hand is an acceptable part of a defence because very often cases evolve around conflicting pieces of testimony where the jury will need to decide how much weight they give to those pieces of testimony.

 

Also note - the judge won’t be adding any new information in his summing up.

The whole purpose of the judge doing this is to provide a summary of what the prosecution and defence laid before the court before the jury retires to consider a verdict - so clearly the defence offered evidence of “good character” to try and add weight to their clients testimony when presenting their defence.

 

Final point - it could be that the “good character” remark was primarily made in reference to the brother that has, so far, not received a conviction… rather than the evident thug that - to give him his due -somewhat impressively, briefly incapacitated and downed 4 officers pretty much single-handedly! 

Edited 30 July 2025 by DJ Barry Hammond

[Spudulike]

29 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

Yeah the two aren’t the same are they.

 

It’s a much bigger issue for a jury to consider a case purely on that case’s merits if previous convictions were allowed to be known.

 

You know - the common idea of “well if he was guilty of that, he’s guilty of this too.”

 

Providing evidence of good character on the other hand is an acceptable part of a defence because very often cases evolve around conflicting pieces of testimony where the jury will need to decide how much weight they give to those pieces of testimony.

 

Also note - the judge won’t be adding any new information in his summing up.

The whole purpose of the judge doing this is to provide a summary of what the prosecution and defence laid before the court before the jury retires to consider a verdict - so clearly the defence offered evidence of “good character” to try and add weight to their clients testimony when presenting their defence.

 

Final point - it could be that the “good character” remark was primarily made in reference to the brother that has, so far, not received a conviction… rather than the evident thug that - to give him his due -somewhat impressively, briefly incapacitated and downed 4 officers pretty much single-handedly! 

I wasn't impressed by punching two women in the face. Hope that his family are proud of him. Perhaps they are.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

I wasn't impressed by punching two women in the face. Hope that his family are proud of him. Perhaps they are.

I rather think that the legal points referenced in the above post might be pertinent too, IMO. 

[Sly]

My first experience of seeing a female naked, was a random magazine discarded in a bush.

 

All these years later, I still wonder how so many got there. 

[Spudulike]

13 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I rather think that the legal points referenced in the above post might be pertinent too, IMO. 

From a quick Google search (so must be true)... 

 

In many jurisdictions, a judge does not disclose a defendant's previous good character before a verdict.This is because such information is generally considered irrelevant to the question of guilt or innocence and could potentially prejudice the jury. The focus during the trial is on the evidence presented in the current case, not on the defendant's past conduct. 

 

Here's a more detailed explanation:

• Focus on the present case:

  In most legal systems, the primary goal during a trial is to assess the evidence related to the specific charges against the defendant. Previous convictions or other character evidence are typically not introduced until after a verdict has been reached. 

   
• Prejudice:

  Introducing evidence of a defendant's good character, or lack thereof, before a verdict is reached is seen as a risk of unfairly influencing the jury. If jurors know about a defendant's past, they may be more likely to convict them based on that past rather than on the evidence presented in the current case, according to the International Debate Education Association. 

   
• Sentencing:

  Evidence of good character or previous convictions is generally considered during the sentencing phase, after a guilty verdict. This allows the judge to make a more informed decision about the appropriate punishment. 

[Sampson]

Let’s not use generic AI slop talking with meaningless generality about “in many jurisdictions”

 

I’m not saying you’re right or wrong but this is how AI can easily convince people with scary misinformation and is not a good habit to allow this stuff for the forum. You need to actually search specific legal precedent in the UK legal system.

Edited 30 July 2025 by Sampson

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

From a quick Google search (so must be true)... 

 

In many jurisdictions, a judge does not disclose a defendant's previous good character before a verdict.This is because such information is generally considered irrelevant to the question of guilt or innocence and could potentially prejudice the jury. The focus during the trial is on the evidence presented in the current case, not on the defendant's past conduct. 

 

Here's a more detailed explanation:

• Focus on the present case:

  In most legal systems, the primary goal during a trial is to assess the evidence related to the specific charges against the defendant. Previous convictions or other character evidence are typically not introduced until after a verdict has been reached. 

   
• Prejudice:

  Introducing evidence of a defendant's good character, or lack thereof, before a verdict is reached is seen as a risk of unfairly influencing the jury. If jurors know about a defendant's past, they may be more likely to convict them based on that past rather than on the evidence presented in the current case, according to the International Debate Education Association. 

   
• Sentencing:

  Evidence of good character or previous convictions is generally considered during the sentencing phase, after a guilty verdict. This allows the judge to make a more informed decision about the appropriate punishment. 

And likewise from Google (so treat this with a heavy pinch of salt, too):

A "good character" defense in a criminal case can be used to argue that the defendant is unlikely to have committed the crime they are accused of, or that they are a truthful individual. This defense often involves presenting evidence of the defendant's positive reputation and lack of prior criminal convictions, or evidence that the alleged offense is out of character for them. 
Key aspects of a good character defense:

    Establishing Good Character:
    A defendant is generally considered to have good character if they have no previous convictions or cautions. However, even with prior convictions, a defendant can still argue for "effective good character" if the convictions are old, minor, or irrelevant to the current charge. 

Types of Evidence:
Good character evidence can be used to demonstrate both the defendant's likelihood of committing the offense (propensity) and their truthfulness (credibility). 
How it Works:
Evidence of good character is presented to the court, and the judge will provide directions to the jury (if applicable) on how to consider this evidence. 
Role of Defence Counsel:
Defence counsel has a responsibility to ensure that the judge is aware of the defendant's good character and to ensure that the court is properly directed on the issue. 
Examples:
A defendant with no prior convictions, or one with old or minor convictions, may argue that they are unlikely to have committed the current offense or that they are more likely to be telling the truth. 

In essence, a good character defense aims to show that the defendant is not the type of person who would commit the crime and/or that they are credible and trustworthy. 

 

Courtesy of defence-barrister.co.uk

 

Little bit of this, little bit of that, it would seem. 
 

[Trav Le Bleu]

56 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Let’s not use generic AI slop talking with meaningless generality about “in many jurisdictions”

 

I’m not saying you’re right or wrong but this is how AI can easily convince people with scary misinformation and is not a good habit to allow this stuff for the forum. You need to actually search specific legal precedent in the UK legal system.

I asked Google a question yesterday about an event that I attended and it got the year wrong by 3 years (at least), because I drove there and I didn't pass by test until 3 years later.

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 hour ago, Spudulike said:

From a quick Google search (so must be true)... 

 

In many jurisdictions, a judge does not disclose a defendant's previous good character before a verdict.This is because such information is generally considered irrelevant to the question of guilt or innocence and could potentially prejudice the jury. The focus during the trial is on the evidence presented in the current case, not on the defendant's past conduct. 

 

Here's a more detailed explanation:

• Focus on the present case:

  In most legal systems, the primary goal during a trial is to assess the evidence related to the specific charges against the defendant. Previous convictions or other character evidence are typically not introduced until after a verdict has been reached. 

   
• Prejudice:

  Introducing evidence of a defendant's good character, or lack thereof, before a verdict is reached is seen as a risk of unfairly influencing the jury. If jurors know about a defendant's past, they may be more likely to convict them based on that past rather than on the evidence presented in the current case, according to the International Debate Education Association. 

   
• Sentencing:

  Evidence of good character or previous convictions is generally considered during the sentencing phase, after a guilty verdict. This allows the judge to make a more informed decision about the appropriate punishment. 

 

59 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And likewise from Google (so treat this with a heavy pinch of salt, too):

A "good character" defense in a criminal case can be used to argue that the defendant is unlikely to have committed the crime they are accused of, or that they are a truthful individual. This defense often involves presenting evidence of the defendant's positive reputation and lack of prior criminal convictions, or evidence that the alleged offense is out of character for them. 
Key aspects of a good character defense:

    Establishing Good Character:
    A defendant is generally considered to have good character if they have no previous convictions or cautions. However, even with prior convictions, a defendant can still argue for "effective good character" if the convictions are old, minor, or irrelevant to the current charge. 

Types of Evidence:
Good character evidence can be used to demonstrate both the defendant's likelihood of committing the offense (propensity) and their truthfulness (credibility). 
How it Works:
Evidence of good character is presented to the court, and the judge will provide directions to the jury (if applicable) on how to consider this evidence. 
Role of Defence Counsel:
Defence counsel has a responsibility to ensure that the judge is aware of the defendant's good character and to ensure that the court is properly directed on the issue. 
Examples:
A defendant with no prior convictions, or one with old or minor convictions, may argue that they are unlikely to have committed the current offense or that they are more likely to be telling the truth. 

In essence, a good character defense aims to show that the defendant is not the type of person who would commit the crime and/or that they are credible and trustworthy. 

 

Courtesy of defence-barrister.co.uk

 

Little bit of this, little bit of that, it would seem. 
 

Are there any lawyers/solicitors/barristers on here who'd like to clarify this, for free?

 

No? Thought not.

[Wymsey]

9 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

 

Are there any lawyers/solicitors/barristers on here who'd like to clarify this, for free?

 

No? Thought not.

Babylon - as he think he's always right?..

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

 

Are there any lawyers/solicitors/barristers on here who'd like to clarify this, for free?

 

No? Thought not.

It would be nice if there was someone who could give an argument from authority here tbh.

 

At least with scientific matters you have peer-reviewed material that can be stated pretty unequivocally as fact.

[Trav Le Bleu]

17 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

It would be nice if there was someone who could give an argument from authority here tbh.

 

At least with scientific matters you have peer-reviewed material that can be stated pretty unequivocally as fact.

Scientists can disagree regularly and once commonly held scientific 'facts' have gone on to be disproved.

 

Not saying don't trust science, just that science is only as good as our understanding.

 

In some ways I'd say that the law is more unequivocal as it contains less unknowns.

Edited 30 July 2025 by Trav Le Bleu

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Scientists can disagree regularly and once commonly held scientific 'facts' have gone on to be disproved.

 

Not saying don't trust science, just that science is only as good as our understanding.

 

In some ways I'd say that the law is more unequivocal as it contains less unknowns.

And that's what the peer review process is for - that exact argument and disagreement.

 

Of course, what it means that fact is only as good as "what empiricism and deductive logic can tell us at any one time", but if you're going down that road then all knowledge is equally subjective and flawed and we'll go along with the massive epistemological circle-jerk talking shop while the world gets worse rather than actually applying any of that knowledge to make it better.

 

Don't get me wrong, I see the point, but at some point people - all people, as a species - are going to have to accept some simple single points of truth in order for anything to get done, and science is IMO the best place to start there, as at least the Method of empiricism and repetitive testing allows for as close to the standard of fact as we're going to get right now.

[st albans fox]

5 hours ago, Spudulike said:

May have been slam dunks but somehow they still pleaded not guilty. Very odd how they thought they could get away with it. Obviously deserves to get the most harsh sentence available but not expecting it given the judges summing up and declaration of previous good character.

 

Also the MP's that were quick to judge will apologise to the police officers.

Well one brother has for now - perhaps it was thought a poor strategy if the they had entered different pleas 

 

[nnfox]

5 hours ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

Previous convictions are not allowed to be disclosed.

 

But ‘good character’ can be used as a defence.

Previous convictions absolutely can be adduced in evidence as 'bad character'.  It's not common by any stretch, but the prosecution can apply to disclose prior convictions if they deem them relevant to the case.  A judge has the final say on whether they can be allowed or not.

[CornwallFox]

Good character is mainly relevant to sentencing rather than trial.

It's a mitigation after a guilty verdict. 

And claims of good character can be countered. 

[foxy boxing]

Good character means absolutely nothing and shouldn'tbe used in sentencing remarks. , I'm sure people would say Jack the ripper or Ian Huntley  had good character. Everyone seems nice and friendly until they flip and cause carnage.

[st albans fox]

44 minutes ago, foxy boxing said:

Good character means absolutely nothing and shouldn'tbe used in sentencing remarks. , I'm sure people would say Jack the ripper or Ian Huntley  had good character. Everyone seems nice and friendly until they flip and cause carnage.

In this case the judge pointed out to the jury that the two hadn’t been involved with the police previously.  He said it was up to them to assess whether that made it less likely that would be guilty.  Given that the evidence was on video I found the comments bizarre. 
 

I wonder if judges have been told to say things like this to try and bring about not guilty verdicts, given the lack of space in our prisons.  Maybe the thoughts of the DOJ is that someone who commits an isolated violent offence isn’t much of a risk and on balance doesn’t need to be put away.  Wouldn’t sound like justice to me. 

Edited 31 July 2025 by st albans fox

[Foxdiamond]

13 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

In this case the judge pointed out to the jury that the two hadn’t been involved with the police previously.  He said it was up to them to assess whether that made it less likely that would be guilty.  Given that the evidence was on video I found the comments bizarre. 
 

I wonder if judges have been told to say things like this to try and bring about not guilty verdicts, given the lack of space in our prisons.  Maybe the thoughts of the DOJ is that someone who commits an isolated violent offence isn’t much of a risk and on balance doesn’t need to be put away.  Doesn’t sound like justice to me. 

I wonder if the fact the incident took place at an airport which are sensitive locations be taken into account. I've heard elsewhere that being described as a student maybe a consideration. As a layman I find this very odd. Would a student get less than say a postman or a shelf stacker or unemployed? 

[fox_up_north]

10 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

I wonder if the fact the incident took place at an airport which are sensitive locations be taken into account. I've heard elsewhere that being described as a student maybe a consideration. As a layman I find this very odd. Would a student get less than say a postman or a shelf stacker or unemployed? 

Typically, yes. There was a very significant case a few years ago where an Oxford med student was given leniency by the judge for her crimes. The crime of stabbing her boyfriend.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-41389520

 

 

The really ridiculous thing is that, instead of taking that as a win, she tried (and failed) to appeal her conviction. 

Edited 31 July 2025 by fox_up_north

[Foxdiamond]

7 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

Typically, yes. There was a very significant case a few years ago where an Oxford med student was given leniency by the judge for her crimes. The crime of stabbing her boyfriend.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-41389520

 

 

The really ridiculous thing is that, instead of taking that as a win, she tried (and failed) to appeal her conviction. 

No wonder the law is sometimes called an ass

[DJ Barry Hammond]

10 hours ago, nnfox said:

Previous convictions absolutely can be adduced in evidence as 'bad character'.  It's not common by any stretch, but the prosecution can apply to disclose prior convictions if they deem them relevant to the case.  A judge has the final say on whether they can be allowed or not.

I know, but when trying to clarify the difference between two situations, adding an additional caveat - which is highly occurrence unusual - is awkward.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

44 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

In this case the judge pointed out to the jury that the two hadn’t been involved with the police previously.  He said it was up to them to assess whether that made it less likely that would be guilty.  Given that the evidence was on video I found the comments bizarre. 
 

I wonder if judges have been told to say things like this to try and bring about not guilty verdicts, given the lack of space in our prisons.  Maybe the thoughts of the DOJ is that someone who commits an isolated violent offence isn’t much of a risk and on balance doesn’t need to be put away.  Doesn’t sound like justice to me. 

No, this has been standard practice for a long time… so long that I couldn’t tell you how far back it dates.

[Raj]

The initial copper who grabbed the twat from behind was OTT as i dont think the twat even knew what was going on, so that bad from that Copper.

BUT NO WAY should the twat have reacted in the way he did once he realised they were Coppers.

Then his arsehole fat brother getting involved stating he was scared for his brothers life!! FFS mate this aint USA!

 

That twat knocked 2 policewomen out deserves jail in itself.

Brother needs a good look at too.

 

The Copper who kicks and stamps on twat needs  a good telling off too as it was unreasonable force.

 

Nothing will happen to them though mark my words....