ADK Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 I always thought the jury was a decent system, unfortunately it isn't perfect. It seems this one just got it wrong.
breadandcheese Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 The judge will sum up for the jury, basically he goes over the evidence, and then directs the jury to the law. Do you mean, does the judge give a detailed judgment as to why he came to the decision he did? If you do, then no, he wouldn't. Once a jury has made a decision, that's it. Only the jury know why they reached a verdict, and as far as I am aware, they're not allowed to say why, as it's all meant to be private. It has been mooted over the years to make juries give their reasons, but I don't know if that would ever be effective, as they can always say "we weren't sure beyond reasonable doubt...", or "we felt the matter was proved beyond reasonable doubt...". I'll be honest, I'm not entirely sure. In the Terry case, the judge gave a great summary, that enabled the layman (like me) to understand the verdict, explaining that whilst Terry's version of events were not credible, there was no way of proving beyond reasonable doubt. So I understood the judgement. Whether the judge in the Terry case was summing up to the jury or not, I don't know, but I'd like to get a better understanding of why the officer was found not guilty.
pSinatra Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 The jury system is flawed but I don't think there's a better way. I was part of a jury on a murder case in Sheffield, when I was at university up there nearly 20 yrs ago. There were 3 people on trial - 2 for murder & the other for perverting the course of justice. The trial started & almost immediately the guy on trial for perverting the course of justice was told that he would stand trial separately. So it was 2 men on trial for beating to death a local (Hull) alcoholic.......who they had given money to go & buy some beer for a party. The alcoholic bought the beer, but had drank it all by the time he had returned from Bargain Booze several hours later. No shit!!?? The dead man was very slight & something like 8 stone. The 2 on trial, one was of average build & the other was a club doorman & was huge. What they did to the dead man was sickening & they systematically beat him up for several hours. It was said that he was already dead by this point, but they had stabbed & bludgeoned him with copper piping. There were pieces of the dead man's skin embedded in the shoes of one of the attackers & the walls of the house, blood everywhere & the evidence against them seemed beyond doubt. We saw photos of the dead man & it was difficult to know what you were looking at.......horrific!! This was no accident. They wanted to kill him & they spent hours doing so, in a cruel & sadistic fashion. The trial was about a week old & if anyone had asked the jury at that point.......we would have most likely all said "guilty". The problem was that all the witnesses were unreliable (fellow alcoholics) & most importantly.........which one of the 2 men on trial dealt the final blow? Which one of them actually killed him? We (the jury) spent a lot of our time sitting in the jury room, whilst discussions we were not privy to were going on in the courtroom. We were just normal folk & a cross-section of the people of Sheffield. I was a student, we had builders, businessmen, a housewife & a retired lady who sat there doing her knitting during discussions. I honestly believed that a "guilty" verdict would have been given by most.......if not all. I certainly would have!! It was to our surprise that we never got to give our verdict. Through plea bargaining, the charge of murder was dropped. The 2 men pleaded guilty to manslaughter & were sentenced to 3 years each. They had already done 12 months on remand........so would most likely be released in 6 months time. The whole jury felt sickened by the verdict, when the evidence against them was so compelling. I have thought about it since & I feel that the jury got wrapped up in the trial & we did not detach ourselves from the emotional aspect of it all. The evidence was there, they were despicable men & they deserved to be sent down for murder. But it keeps coming back to who dealt the final blow......which one killed him?? There was no way it could be determined which of the 2 men it was & which of them was the most culpable. It didn't feel right, but the right verdict was reached by the court......& not the jury!! My guilty verdict would have been wrong. There was clearly more than enough reasonable doubt. I never did find out, but it is more than likely that the lad accused of perverting the course of justice (helped move the body) got a bigger sentence than the killers........he was guilty & couldn't share his charge with anyone else. Most people aren't interested in jury service, but I was 'lucky' enough to get a murder trial & found it fascinating. Opened my eyes to how the legal system works
Guest Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 I'll be honest, I'm not entirely sure. In the Terry case, the judge gave a great summary, that enabled the layman (like me) to understand the verdict, explaining that whilst Terry's version of events were not credible, there was no way of proving beyond reasonable doubt. So I understood the judgement. Whether the judge in the Terry case was summing up to the jury or not, I don't know, but I'd like to get a better understanding of why the officer was found not guilty. Because Mags Courts don't have juries, judges or magistrates give their reasons for the verdicts they find. Jury trials don't, as the jury decide if someone is guilty or not, and their deliberations are confidential, so they don't have to give reasons. The Judge has just as much idea as the rest of us as to how they reached their verdict. It does go to show that presenting one group of people with a set of evidence, and then presenting to another doesn't always give the same result.
Guest Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 ... But it keeps coming back to who dealt the final blow......which one killed him?? There was no way it could be determined which of the 2 men it was & which of them was the most culpable. It didn't feel right, but the right verdict was reached by the court......& not the jury!! My guilty verdict would have been wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if it was going to be a "joint enterprise" - it wouldn't matter who dealt the final blow then.
pSinatra Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 I wouldn't be surprised if it was going to be a "joint enterprise" - it wouldn't matter who dealt the final blow then. You seem to know more about this kind of stuff than me, but that was how it was explained to us by the police outside of the courtroom.
FoxyPV Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 I heard on Radio 4 this mornig that out of the 150 odd deaths in custody, there has only been one conviction; in the 70s, and that was for assualt. It just appears that the police are able to look after their own, regardless of their actions.
AdamN Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 I heard on Radio 4 this mornig that out of the 150 odd deaths in custody, there has only been one conviction; in the 70s, and that was for assualt. It just appears that the police are able to look after their own, regardless of their actions. It'd be interesting to hear what the causes of those deaths were though. I assume if they're in custody already then a good number of those will be suicide.
Saxondale Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 So you think, in a court of Law people should be judged on events that were not in any way related to the 'crime' that took place? No - I didn't say that did I? I think the video evidence was pretty much enough. The article merely points out, for our reference, what a complete c**t the bloke is.
Guest Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 I think the video evidence was pretty much enough. The article merely points out, for our reference, what a complete c**t the bloke is. The video is proof of the actus reus, it does not demonstrate the necessary mens rea for the crime. You seem to know more about this kind of stuff than me, but that was how it was explained to us by the police outside of the courtroom. It's a popular essay question on a law degree!
Benji Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 The video is proof of the actus reus, it does not demonstrate the necessary mens rea for the crime. It's a popular essay question on a law degree! I'm amazed the prosecution didn't constantly hammer it into you Sinatra that the last hit doesn't matter. Would be a poor way to lose a verdict! The whole police state being churped on here is a non-subject. The verdict wasn't made by the Chief of Police, it was a jury. CPS and no one else to blame for bringing the wrong charges on the evidence they had. The fact is his actions caused the guy to die. CPS went for the big headline hitter charge and lost. Simple.
Rincewind Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 With sinatra's situation, I would have thought the same as Benji. They were both involved in the killing and neither as far as I know did anything to stop the other. Could not one of the jury members had raised this point and asked for advice on the law as I believe they can during their deliberations? I thought the jury could ask for clarifcation on certain aspects on the law in order to reach a fair verdict.
Daggers Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 Harwood's case was that his actions, and the force he used, were "proportionate" in the circumstances. And it will be to the CPS' eternal shame that they failed to prove it wasn't.
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 Think the CPS who would most probably have been in receipt of his past misdemeanours saw a chance to make a name for themselves here...........another fail! He doesn't seem like a particularly nice man but that doesn't make him guilty and the right decision for me. This.
pSinatra Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 It's a popular essay question on a law degree! Should've done a law degree. I always knew a History degree would prove worthless.........& that's why I'm now a gardener!! With sinatra's situation, I would have thought the same as Benji. They were both involved in the killing and neither as far as I know did anything to stop the other. Could not one of the jury members had raised this point and asked for advice on the law as I believe they can during their deliberations? I thought the jury could ask for clarifcation on certain aspects on the law in order to reach a fair verdict. We could have asked for clarification at any point during the trial, but once the charge of murder was dropped & a guilty plea to manslaughter was accepted - the jury was redundant. We weren't told anything by the court. We all wanted to know what was going on & only found out by speaking with police involved in the case who had sat-in during the trial. There was a hell of a lot of information that the jury was not allowed to know.......which is fair enough. We spent a lot of time sat in the jury room whilst discussions were being held in the courtroom. This may well have been the the case during the trial of PC Harwood. Information not disclosed to the jury........I would have no idea what that could be? We may be getting a lot of information since the trial that the jury did not know at the time?
Rincewind Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 If the plea was changed then there was nothing you could do. Manslaughter is normally meaning to harm but not to kill but if there was stabbing involved I cannot see how they can claim that. I have a slight interest in the law but there is so much to it and its very complicated. I believe and I stand to be corrected that many lawers specialise because of this. Sort of got interested when I did an English course at night school and had to read up on the Bentley case in the 50's. The trial and execution took less than about 8 weeks. There was an apeal took to the House of Commons (last minute stay) but they were told they were syphathetic but the execution needed to go ahead as an example and a warning to the youth of Britain. It was Craig that actually shot the PC but he was under age. The cae rested on those famous words 'Let him have it' which Bentley said meant give the policeman the gun. To me there was doubt in what context those words were meant. The eyewitness needed glasses and street lighting was poor. Today the guilty vertict would never be given based on the evidence.
1964FOX Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 Plea bargaining is the biggest thing wrong about our justice system.
Daggers Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 Plea bargaining is the biggest thing wrong about our justice system. No - the underfunding of the CPS, the poor control of its operation and the disgusting rape of legal aid is the worst thing about our legal system.
1964FOX Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 No - the underfunding of the CPS, the poor control of its operation and the disgusting rape of legal aid is the worst thing about our legal system. Ah the legal aid band wagon, can't argue with you about that being disgraceful.
skinnydipper Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 Ah the legal aid band wagon, can't argue with you about that being disgraceful. At the outset I shall declare my vested in interest in that in part, I earn my living from what you term " the legal aid bandwagon" The content of your post strikes me as being an uncharacteristically naive view from you '64. I think that a civilised society should provide access to justice and equality of arms in relation to fundamental rights. I wouldn't disagree that the system is imperfect. So is the NHS - should poorer people be denied access to medical treatment? I'm sure that you can pull up a few articles from the Daily Moron about wastes of legal aid but I have experience of it's application preventing serious miscarriages of justice. No - the underfunding of the CPS, the poor control of its operation and the disgusting rape of legal aid is the worst thing about our legal system. Wow! We agree.
Rincewind Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 I had free legal advice and I assume it included the aid of a solicitor to help me claim back unpaid wages when my company decided to go into receivership without informing its employees the state of its affairs. Without it I would be nearly £1000 worse off because it would have cost more in legal fees than I c got back. So does that mean that only those with money can have a fair deal?
Guest Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 Plea bargaining is the biggest thing wrong about our justice system. Where do you stand on the increasing use of cautions and fixed penalty notices by the police, to deal with matters that ordinarily would have been charged?
Guest Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 I had free legal advice and I assume it included the aid of a solicitor to help me claim back unpaid wages when my company decided to go into receivership without informing its employees the state of its affairs. Without it I would be nearly £1000 worse off because it would have cost more in legal fees than I c got back. So does that mean that only those with money can have a fair deal? Yes. People moan on one hand about rich people paying for fancy lawyers, whilst in the next breath, they say we should do away with legal aid.
pSinatra Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 Where do you stand on the increasing use of cautions and fixed penalty notices by the police, to deal with matters that ordinarily would have been charged? It saves a lot of time & cost, but my first thought is that they are somewhat discretionary. I wouldn't want to be a bit pissed anywhere near PC Harwood
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.