@Pagan2 the BBC article suggests that the Defence argument was that they was no intention to cause said harm, not that they did not realize they were dragging him.
Sorry what did they think that dragging a man along a road would do if they didnt think it would cause harm. Just about everyone has a friend that has come off a motorbike in full protective gear and been subject to road rash
As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.
“Intent” is not the same as “recklessness to an outcome”. The law is complicated, it isn’t simple, and your layman analogies are irrelevant here.
Manslaughter can result in a life sentence anyway if the judge deems it suitable. What is the problem?
Ah so in your world putting a noose around someones neck and pulling them up in the air is merely being reckless to an outcome. Death by dragging was just as common an execution method for lynch victims.
I don’t understand your point.
In your example, the prosecution would have to prove the defendant intended to cause gbh or death by their actions. The defence may argue that they didn’t, whether that is credible or not is another question.
Remember it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt.
Did the defendants in this case intend to cause gbh or kill the victim, or did they merely intend to get away, and were reckless to the possibility that the victim might get hurt, or even die? If its the latter then its manslaughter not murder.
So the fact that the bastards were so ignorant as to be uncomprehending that if you pulled a man behind a car at 40mph on tarmac, its not cuts and bruises but death is extenuating, making it manslaughter. That's a stretch however you approach it. Scum.
The verdict itself does not matter as much as the sentencing and Braverman will ensure it is a life sentence or as close to it as possible if Boris and Cummings do not think the judge's sentence is tough enough for red wall voters in such a high profile case
What's "red wall" got to do with it? "Decent" is better but the conditionality is entirely unnecessary.
@Pagan2 the BBC article suggests that the Defence argument was that they was no intention to cause said harm, not that they did not realize they were dragging him.
Sorry what did they think that dragging a man along a road would do if they didnt think it would cause harm. Just about everyone has a friend that has come off a motorbike in full protective gear and been subject to road rash
As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.
“Intent” is not the same as “recklessness to an outcome”. The law is complicated, it isn’t simple, and your layman analogies are irrelevant here.
Manslaughter can result in a life sentence anyway if the judge deems it suitable. What is the problem?
Ah so in your world putting a noose around someones neck and pulling them up in the air is merely being reckless to an outcome. Death by dragging was just as common an execution method for lynch victims.
I don’t understand your point.
In your example, the prosecution would have to prove the defendant intended to cause gbh or death by their actions. The defence may argue that they didn’t, whether that is credible or not is another question.
Remember it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt.
Did the defendants in this case intend to cause gbh or kill the victim, or did they merely intend to get away, and were reckless to the possibility that the victim might get hurt, or even die? If its the latter then its manslaughter not murder.
So the fact that the bastards were so ignorant as to be uncomprehending that if you pulled a man behind a car at 40mph on tarmac, its not cuts and bruises but death is extenuating, making it manslaughter. That's a stretch however you approach it. Scum.
They are scum. But what difference does it make? If the justice system is working as intended, the judge will impose a long prison sentence regardless of whether it was “murder” or “manslaughter”.
Like @HYUFD says the attorney general can also intervene if the government considers the sentence too lenient.
That is cold comfort for the family and for all decent people. The law only runs if the majority thinks it fair. It's why lawyers are viewed with suspicion when it doesn't.
What isn’t fair? It isn’t lawyers, its a jury of normal people.
If you want a 3rd degree murder offence, lobby the government into creating one.
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
I don’t know the law at all, but it seems pretty obvious the jury were got at. They’re getting done for manslaughter, what sentence will that carry?
You’ve gone from “I don’t know the law at all” to “it seems obvious” in one sentence. What? Murder requires an intent to cause gbh or death. Quite a high bar to prove.
Yes I don’t know the law on double jeopardy at all, but it seems obvious the jury were got at. That’s what!
We weren't there. We didn't hear the case. All we see is the newspaper stories.
And remember that in the UK (unlike the US) majority verdicts are needed. So getting at even two jurors wouldn't be enough on its own. Not only that, but if the jury couldn't reach a decision, we'd know that. So if the jury was got at, it has to been 10 of the 12 members who were nobbled.
So, it's possible that had we been in that courtroom, and listened to what the jury heard, then we'd have gone the same way.
You don’t say
I understand why the family's pissed. I'm pissed. You just have to see the bastards' reactions.
Of course they're pissed. In their shoes, I'd be angry beyond belief.
But the jury presumably had their reasons for making the decision they did.
Quite. What were the reasons? Someone has to ask.
I suspect if you ask the prosecuting lawyer, he will tell you.
The problem is that newspapers exist to sell advertising revenue. You will garner more views and more sales and more revenue by presenting this as a miscarriage of justice (and by the way, this works both ways, as in "how can this person have been imprisoned!") than by giving a measured analysis of why the jury went the way they did.
@Pagan2 the BBC article suggests that the Defence argument was that they was no intention to cause said harm, not that they did not realize they were dragging him.
Sorry what did they think that dragging a man along a road would do if they didnt think it would cause harm. Just about everyone has a friend that has come off a motorbike in full protective gear and been subject to road rash
As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.
“Intent” is not the same as “recklessness to an outcome”. The law is complicated, it isn’t simple, and your layman analogies are irrelevant here.
Manslaughter can result in a life sentence anyway if the judge deems it suitable. What is the problem?
Ah so in your world putting a noose around someones neck and pulling them up in the air is merely being reckless to an outcome. Death by dragging was just as common an execution method for lynch victims.
I don’t understand your point.
In your example, the prosecution would have to prove the defendant intended to cause gbh or death by their actions. The defence may argue that they didn’t, whether that is credible or not is another question.
Remember it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt.
Did the defendants in this case intend to cause gbh or kill the victim, or did they merely intend to get away, and were reckless to the possibility that the victim might get hurt, or even die? If its the latter then its manslaughter not murder.
So the fact that the bastards were so ignorant as to be uncomprehending that if you pulled a man behind a car at 40mph on tarmac, its not cuts and bruises but death is extenuating, making it manslaughter. That's a stretch however you approach it. Scum.
The verdict itself does not matter as much as the sentencing and Braverman will ensure it is a life sentence or as close to it as possible if Boris and Cummings do not think the judge's sentence is tough enough for red wall voters in such a high profile case
What's "red wall" got to do with it? "Decent" is better but the conditionality is entirely unnecessary.
A lot as the Tories won a majority partly to defy the left liberal elite and the will of the people must be enacted and the Attorney General on the instructions of Boris and Cummings will ensure it is
@Pagan2 the BBC article suggests that the Defence argument was that they was no intention to cause said harm, not that they did not realize they were dragging him.
Sorry what did they think that dragging a man along a road would do if they didnt think it would cause harm. Just about everyone has a friend that has come off a motorbike in full protective gear and been subject to road rash
As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.
“Intent” is not the same as “recklessness to an outcome”. The law is complicated, it isn’t simple, and your layman analogies are irrelevant here.
Manslaughter can result in a life sentence anyway if the judge deems it suitable. What is the problem?
Ah so in your world putting a noose around someones neck and pulling them up in the air is merely being reckless to an outcome. Death by dragging was just as common an execution method for lynch victims.
I don’t understand your point.
In your example, the prosecution would have to prove the defendant intended to cause gbh or death by their actions. The defence may argue that they didn’t, whether that is credible or not is another question.
Remember it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt.
Did the defendants in this case intend to cause gbh or kill the victim, or did they merely intend to get away, and were reckless to the possibility that the victim might get hurt, or even die? If its the latter then its manslaughter not murder.
So the fact that the bastards were so ignorant as to be uncomprehending that if you pulled a man behind a car at 40mph on tarmac, its not cuts and bruises but death is extenuating, making it manslaughter. That's a stretch however you approach it. Scum.
The verdict itself does not matter as much as the sentencing and Braverman will ensure it is a life sentence or as close to it as possible if Boris and Cummings do not think the judge's sentence is tough enough for red wall voters in such a high profile case
What's "red wall" got to do with it? "Decent" is better but the conditionality is entirely unnecessary.
A lot as the Tories won a majority partly to defy the left liberal elite and the will of the people must be enacted and the Attorney General on the instructions of Boris and Cummings will ensure it is
@Pagan2 the BBC article suggests that the Defence argument was that they was no intention to cause said harm, not that they did not realize they were dragging him.
Sorry what did they think that dragging a man along a road would do if they didnt think it would cause harm. Just about everyone has a friend that has come off a motorbike in full protective gear and been subject to road rash
As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.
“Intent” is not the same as “recklessness to an outcome”. The law is complicated, it isn’t simple, and your layman analogies are irrelevant here.
Manslaughter can result in a life sentence anyway if the judge deems it suitable. What is the problem?
Ah so in your world putting a noose around someones neck and pulling them up in the air is merely being reckless to an outcome. Death by dragging was just as common an execution method for lynch victims.
I don’t understand your point.
In your example, the prosecution would have to prove the defendant intended to cause gbh or death by their actions. The defence may argue that they didn’t, whether that is credible or not is another question.
Remember it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt.
Did the defendants in this case intend to cause gbh or kill the victim, or did they merely intend to get away, and were reckless to the possibility that the victim might get hurt, or even die? If its the latter then its manslaughter not murder.
So the fact that the bastards were so ignorant as to be uncomprehending that if you pulled a man behind a car at 40mph on tarmac, its not cuts and bruises but death is extenuating, making it manslaughter. That's a stretch however you approach it. Scum.
The verdict itself does not matter as much as the sentencing and Braverman will ensure it is a life sentence or as close to it as possible if Boris and Cummings do not think the judge's sentence is tough enough for red wall voters in such a high profile case
What's "red wall" got to do with it? "Decent" is better but the conditionality is entirely unnecessary.
A lot as the Tories won a majority partly to defy the left liberal elite and the will of the people must be enacted and the Attorney General on the instructions of Boris and Cummings will ensure it is
“Left liberal elite” yawn.
I was being a bit sarcastic but you are correct the Attorney General will impose a long sentence even if the judge does not
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
I don’t know the law at all, but it seems pretty obvious the jury were got at. They’re getting done for manslaughter, what sentence will that carry?
You’ve gone from “I don’t know the law at all” to “it seems obvious” in one sentence. What? Murder requires an intent to cause gbh or death. Quite a high bar to prove.
Yes I don’t know the law on double jeopardy at all, but it seems obvious the jury were got at. That’s what!
We weren't there. We didn't hear the case. All we see is the newspaper stories.
And remember that in the UK (unlike the US) majority verdicts are needed. So getting at even two jurors wouldn't be enough on its own. Not only that, but if the jury couldn't reach a decision, we'd know that. So if the jury was got at, it has to been 10 of the 12 members who were nobbled.
So, it's possible that had we been in that courtroom, and listened to what the jury heard, then we'd have gone the same way.
You don’t say
I understand why the family's pissed. I'm pissed. You just have to see the bastards' reactions.
Of course they're pissed. In their shoes, I'd be angry beyond belief.
But the jury presumably had their reasons for making the decision they did.
Quite. What were the reasons? Someone has to ask.
I suspect if you ask the prosecuting lawyer, he will tell you.
The problem is that newspapers exist to sell advertising revenue. You will garner more views and more sales and more revenue by presenting this as a miscarriage of justice (and by the way, this works both ways, as in "how can this person have been imprisoned!") than by giving a measured analysis of why the jury went the way they did.
I hadn't realised that this is fake news. Sorry.
I'm not saying it's fake news.
But the people who heard all the evidence came to a different conclusion to you. Surely you must at least entertain the possibility that they are right, and you are wrong.
@Pagan2 the BBC article suggests that the Defence argument was that they was no intention to cause said harm, not that they did not realize they were dragging him.
Sorry what did they think that dragging a man along a road would do if they didnt think it would cause harm. Just about everyone has a friend that has come off a motorbike in full protective gear and been subject to road rash
As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.
“Intent” is not the same as “recklessness to an outcome”. The law is complicated, it isn’t simple, and your layman analogies are irrelevant here.
Manslaughter can result in a life sentence anyway if the judge deems it suitable. What is the problem?
Ah so in your world putting a noose around someones neck and pulling them up in the air is merely being reckless to an outcome. Death by dragging was just as common an execution method for lynch victims.
I don’t understand your point.
In your example, the prosecution would have to prove the defendant intended to cause gbh or death by their actions. The defence may argue that they didn’t, whether that is credible or not is another question.
Remember it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt.
Did the defendants in this case intend to cause gbh or kill the victim, or did they merely intend to get away, and were reckless to the possibility that the victim might get hurt, or even die? If its the latter then its manslaughter not murder.
So the fact that the bastards were so ignorant as to be uncomprehending that if you pulled a man behind a car at 40mph on tarmac, its not cuts and bruises but death is extenuating, making it manslaughter. That's a stretch however you approach it. Scum.
They are scum. But what difference does it make? If the justice system is working as intended, the judge will impose a long prison sentence regardless of whether it was “murder” or “manslaughter”.
Like @HYUFD says the attorney general can also intervene if the government considers the sentence too lenient.
That is cold comfort for the family and for all decent people. The law only runs if the majority thinks it fair. It's why lawyers are viewed with suspicion when it doesn't.
What isn’t fair? It isn’t lawyers, its a jury of normal people.
If you want a 3rd degree murder offence, lobby the government into creating one.
If they're normal, they would be susceptible to outside influences. Should that not be tested when the vast majority of normal people would, I suspect, Judge the bastards as guilty of murder. You can't just be lucky to get the 12 who's view doesn't align with the "norm". What percentage of the population do you believe would vote "fair" given a choice? I accept that that isn't how the law should work, but that's not the real world. Allowing decisions like this to go unchallenged, undermines the credibility of the law. I accept there are risks but ....
@Pagan2 the BBC article suggests that the Defence argument was that they was no intention to cause said harm, not that they did not realize they were dragging him.
Sorry what did they think that dragging a man along a road would do if they didnt think it would cause harm. Just about everyone has a friend that has come off a motorbike in full protective gear and been subject to road rash
As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.
“Intent” is not the same as “recklessness to an outcome”. The law is complicated, it isn’t simple, and your layman analogies are irrelevant here.
Manslaughter can result in a life sentence anyway if the judge deems it suitable. What is the problem?
Ah so in your world putting a noose around someones neck and pulling them up in the air is merely being reckless to an outcome. Death by dragging was just as common an execution method for lynch victims.
I don’t understand your point.
In your example, the prosecution would have to prove the defendant intended to cause gbh or death by their actions. The defence may argue that they didn’t, whether that is credible or not is another question.
Remember it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt.
Did the defendants in this case intend to cause gbh or kill the victim, or did they merely intend to get away, and were reckless to the possibility that the victim might get hurt, or even die? If its the latter then its manslaughter not murder.
So the fact that the bastards were so ignorant as to be uncomprehending that if you pulled a man behind a car at 40mph on tarmac, its not cuts and bruises but death is extenuating, making it manslaughter. That's a stretch however you approach it. Scum.
They are scum. But what difference does it make? If the justice system is working as intended, the judge will impose a long prison sentence regardless of whether it was “murder” or “manslaughter”.
Like @HYUFD says the attorney general can also intervene if the government considers the sentence too lenient.
That is cold comfort for the family and for all decent people. The law only runs if the majority thinks it fair. It's why lawyers are viewed with suspicion when it doesn't.
What isn’t fair? It isn’t lawyers, its a jury of normal people.
If you want a 3rd degree murder offence, lobby the government into creating one.
If they're normal, they would be susceptible to outside influences. Should that not be tested when the vast majority of normal people would, I suspect, Judge the bastards as guilty of murder. You can't just be lucky to get the 12 who's view doesn't align with the "norm". What percentage of the population do you believe would vote "fair" given a choice? I accept that that isn't how the law should work, but that's not the real world. Allowing decisions like this to go unchallenged, undermines the credibility of the law. I accept there are risks but ....
Like I said, what are you upset about?
Is it merely not being able to call them murderers? If so, we need a 3rd degree murder offence, which we don’t have.
Courts can’t just simply invent stuff willy nilly.
@alterego what exactly are you upset about? Is merely the wording of the offence, and the inability to call the defendants “murderers”? Is that it?
The prison sentence between manslaughter and murder may very well be the same, so it can’t be that.
Like I said, in America “3rd degree Murder” is what we’d call manslaughter, and would apply in this case most likely.
We'll see what the sentence is but it's all so unnecessary making this a technical argument. Why can't we satisfy ourselves that the jury wasn't got at?
@Pagan2 the BBC article suggests that the Defence argument was that they was no intention to cause said harm, not that they did not realize they were dragging him.
Sorry what did they think that dragging a man along a road would do if they didnt think it would cause harm. Just about everyone has a friend that has come off a motorbike in full protective gear and been subject to road rash
As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.
“Intent” is not the same as “recklessness to an outcome”. The law is complicated, it isn’t simple, and your layman analogies are irrelevant here.
Manslaughter can result in a life sentence anyway if the judge deems it suitable. What is the problem?
Ah so in your world putting a noose around someones neck and pulling them up in the air is merely being reckless to an outcome. Death by dragging was just as common an execution method for lynch victims.
I don’t understand your point.
In your example, the prosecution would have to prove the defendant intended to cause gbh or death by their actions. The defence may argue that they didn’t, whether that is credible or not is another question.
Remember it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt.
Did the defendants in this case intend to cause gbh or kill the victim, or did they merely intend to get away, and were reckless to the possibility that the victim might get hurt, or even die? If its the latter then its manslaughter not murder.
So the fact that the bastards were so ignorant as to be uncomprehending that if you pulled a man behind a car at 40mph on tarmac, its not cuts and bruises but death is extenuating, making it manslaughter. That's a stretch however you approach it. Scum.
They are scum. But what difference does it make? If the justice system is working as intended, the judge will impose a long prison sentence regardless of whether it was “murder” or “manslaughter”.
Like @HYUFD says the attorney general can also intervene if the government considers the sentence too lenient.
That is cold comfort for the family and for all decent people. The law only runs if the majority thinks it fair. It's why lawyers are viewed with suspicion when it doesn't.
What isn’t fair? It isn’t lawyers, its a jury of normal people.
If you want a 3rd degree murder offence, lobby the government into creating one.
If they're normal, they would be susceptible to outside influences. Should that not be tested when the vast majority of normal people would, I suspect, Judge the bastards as guilty of murder. You can't just be lucky to get the 12 who's view doesn't align with the "norm". What percentage of the population do you believe would vote "fair" given a choice? I accept that that isn't how the law should work, but that's not the real world. Allowing decisions like this to go unchallenged, undermines the credibility of the law. I accept there are risks but ....
Like I said, what are you upset about?
Is it merely not being able to call them murderers? If so, we need a 3rd degree murder offence, which we don’t have.
Courts can’t just simply invent stuff willy nilly.
Lawyers are keen to protect their fees. I understand that but stop pretending its virtuous.
@alterego what exactly are you upset about? Is merely the wording of the offence, and the inability to call the defendants “murderers”? Is that it?
The prison sentence between manslaughter and murder may very well be the same, so it can’t be that.
Like I said, in America “3rd degree Murder” is what we’d call manslaughter, and would apply in this case most likely.
We'll see what the sentence is but it's all so unnecessary making this a technical argument. Why can't we satisfy ourselves that the jury wasn't got at?
I don’t know whether the jury was got at or not. It very well may have. I was merely challenging the argument that it was “obvious”.
I’m currently going through the process of training to be a solicitor and I agree that the law is far too complicated and inaccessible, and thus most normal people don’t understand it. That’s wrong, but it’s good for lawyers.
@Pagan2 the BBC article suggests that the Defence argument was that they was no intention to cause said harm, not that they did not realize they were dragging him.
Sorry what did they think that dragging a man along a road would do if they didnt think it would cause harm. Just about everyone has a friend that has come off a motorbike in full protective gear and been subject to road rash
As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.
“Intent” is not the same as “recklessness to an outcome”. The law is complicated, it isn’t simple, and your layman analogies are irrelevant here.
Manslaughter can result in a life sentence anyway if the judge deems it suitable. What is the problem?
Ah so in your world putting a noose around someones neck and pulling them up in the air is merely being reckless to an outcome. Death by dragging was just as common an execution method for lynch victims.
I don’t understand your point.
In your example, the prosecution would have to prove the defendant intended to cause gbh or death by their actions. The defence may argue that they didn’t, whether that is credible or not is another question.
Remember it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt.
Did the defendants in this case intend to cause gbh or kill the victim, or did they merely intend to get away, and were reckless to the possibility that the victim might get hurt, or even die? If its the latter then its manslaughter not murder.
So the fact that the bastards were so ignorant as to be uncomprehending that if you pulled a man behind a car at 40mph on tarmac, its not cuts and bruises but death is extenuating, making it manslaughter. That's a stretch however you approach it. Scum.
The verdict itself does not matter as much as the sentencing and Braverman will ensure it is a life sentence or as close to it as possible if Boris and Cummings do not think the judge's sentence is tough enough for red wall voters in such a high profile case
What's "red wall" got to do with it? "Decent" is better but the conditionality is entirely unnecessary.
A lot as the Tories won a majority partly to defy the left liberal elite and the will of the people must be enacted and the Attorney General on the instructions of Boris and Cummings will ensure it is
“Left liberal elite” yawn.
I was being a bit sarcastic but you are correct the Attorney General will impose a long sentence even if the judge does not
@Pagan2 the BBC article suggests that the Defence argument was that they was no intention to cause said harm, not that they did not realize they were dragging him.
Sorry what did they think that dragging a man along a road would do if they didnt think it would cause harm. Just about everyone has a friend that has come off a motorbike in full protective gear and been subject to road rash
As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.
“Intent” is not the same as “recklessness to an outcome”. The law is complicated, it isn’t simple, and your layman analogies are irrelevant here.
Manslaughter can result in a life sentence anyway if the judge deems it suitable. What is the problem?
Ah so in your world putting a noose around someones neck and pulling them up in the air is merely being reckless to an outcome. Death by dragging was just as common an execution method for lynch victims.
I don’t understand your point.
In your example, the prosecution would have to prove the defendant intended to cause gbh or death by their actions. The defence may argue that they didn’t, whether that is credible or not is another question.
Remember it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt.
Did the defendants in this case intend to cause gbh or kill the victim, or did they merely intend to get away, and were reckless to the possibility that the victim might get hurt, or even die? If its the latter then its manslaughter not murder.
So the fact that the bastards were so ignorant as to be uncomprehending that if you pulled a man behind a car at 40mph on tarmac, its not cuts and bruises but death is extenuating, making it manslaughter. That's a stretch however you approach it. Scum.
They are scum. But what difference does it make? If the justice system is working as intended, the judge will impose a long prison sentence regardless of whether it was “murder” or “manslaughter”.
Like @HYUFD says the attorney general can also intervene if the government considers the sentence too lenient.
That is cold comfort for the family and for all decent people. The law only runs if the majority thinks it fair. It's why lawyers are viewed with suspicion when it doesn't.
What isn’t fair? It isn’t lawyers, its a jury of normal people.
If you want a 3rd degree murder offence, lobby the government into creating one.
If they're normal, they would be susceptible to outside influences. Should that not be tested when the vast majority of normal people would, I suspect, Judge the bastards as guilty of murder. You can't just be lucky to get the 12 who's view doesn't align with the "norm". What percentage of the population do you believe would vote "fair" given a choice? I accept that that isn't how the law should work, but that's not the real world. Allowing decisions like this to go unchallenged, undermines the credibility of the law. I accept there are risks but ....
Like I said, what are you upset about?
Is it merely not being able to call them murderers? If so, we need a 3rd degree murder offence, which we don’t have.
Courts can’t just simply invent stuff willy nilly.
Lawyers are keen to protect their fees. I understand that but stop pretending its virtuous.
I don’t disagree with you at all, but that has very little to do with this particular case, other than the clear ignorance of what “murder” actually is.
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
I don’t know the law at all, but it seems pretty obvious the jury were got at. They’re getting done for manslaughter, what sentence will that carry?
You’ve gone from “I don’t know the law at all” to “it seems obvious” in one sentence. What? Murder requires an intent to cause gbh or death. Quite a high bar to prove.
Yes I don’t know the law on double jeopardy at all, but it seems obvious the jury were got at. That’s what!
We weren't there. We didn't hear the case. All we see is the newspaper stories.
And remember that in the UK (unlike the US) majority verdicts are needed. So getting at even two jurors wouldn't be enough on its own. Not only that, but if the jury couldn't reach a decision, we'd know that. So if the jury was got at, it has to been 10 of the 12 members who were nobbled.
So, it's possible that had we been in that courtroom, and listened to what the jury heard, then we'd have gone the same way.
You don’t say
I understand why the family's pissed. I'm pissed. You just have to see the bastards' reactions.
Of course they're pissed. In their shoes, I'd be angry beyond belief.
But the jury presumably had their reasons for making the decision they did.
Quite. What were the reasons? Someone has to ask.
I suspect if you ask the prosecuting lawyer, he will tell you.
The problem is that newspapers exist to sell advertising revenue. You will garner more views and more sales and more revenue by presenting this as a miscarriage of justice (and by the way, this works both ways, as in "how can this person have been imprisoned!") than by giving a measured analysis of why the jury went the way they did.
I hadn't realised that this is fake news. Sorry.
I'm not saying it's fake news.
But the people who heard all the evidence came to a different conclusion to you. Surely you must at least entertain the possibility that they are right, and you are wrong.
I do entertain that possibility. The issue is whether Joe Public does.The law is often an ass and those who administer it must take some responsibility.
@alterego what exactly are you upset about? Is merely the wording of the offence, and the inability to call the defendants “murderers”? Is that it?
The prison sentence between manslaughter and murder may very well be the same, so it can’t be that.
Like I said, in America “3rd degree Murder” is what we’d call manslaughter, and would apply in this case most likely.
We'll see what the sentence is but it's all so unnecessary making this a technical argument. Why can't we satisfy ourselves that the jury wasn't got at?
I don’t know whether the jury was got at or not. It very well may have. I was merely challenging the argument that it was “obvious”.
I’m currently going through the process of training to be a solicitor and I agree that the law is far too complicated and inaccessible, and thus most normal people don’t understand it. That’s wrong, but it’s good for lawyers.
You'll never make it with that kind of attitude, but I commend it. No comfort. Go for employment law.
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
I don’t know the law at all, but it seems pretty obvious the jury were got at. They’re getting done for manslaughter, what sentence will that carry?
You’ve gone from “I don’t know the law at all” to “it seems obvious” in one sentence. What? Murder requires an intent to cause gbh or death. Quite a high bar to prove.
Yes I don’t know the law on double jeopardy at all, but it seems obvious the jury were got at. That’s what!
We weren't there. We didn't hear the case. All we see is the newspaper stories.
And remember that in the UK (unlike the US) majority verdicts are needed. So getting at even two jurors wouldn't be enough on its own. Not only that, but if the jury couldn't reach a decision, we'd know that. So if the jury was got at, it has to been 10 of the 12 members who were nobbled.
So, it's possible that had we been in that courtroom, and listened to what the jury heard, then we'd have gone the same way.
You don’t say
I understand why the family's pissed. I'm pissed. You just have to see the bastards' reactions.
Of course they're pissed. In their shoes, I'd be angry beyond belief.
But the jury presumably had their reasons for making the decision they did.
Quite. What were the reasons? Someone has to ask.
I suspect if you ask the prosecuting lawyer, he will tell you.
The problem is that newspapers exist to sell advertising revenue. You will garner more views and more sales and more revenue by presenting this as a miscarriage of justice (and by the way, this works both ways, as in "how can this person have been imprisoned!") than by giving a measured analysis of why the jury went the way they did.
I hadn't realised that this is fake news. Sorry.
I'm not saying it's fake news.
But the people who heard all the evidence came to a different conclusion to you. Surely you must at least entertain the possibility that they are right, and you are wrong.
I do entertain that possibility. The issue is whether Joe Public does.The law is often an ass and those who administer it must take some responsibility.
The government ultimately administers it, and has the power to reform it. What did you expect “lawyers” to have done differently in this case?
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
I don’t know the law at all, but it seems pretty obvious the jury were got at. They’re getting done for manslaughter, what sentence will that carry?
You’ve gone from “I don’t know the law at all” to “it seems obvious” in one sentence. What? Murder requires an intent to cause gbh or death. Quite a high bar to prove.
Yes I don’t know the law on double jeopardy at all, but it seems obvious the jury were got at. That’s what!
We weren't there. We didn't hear the case. All we see is the newspaper stories.
And remember that in the UK (unlike the US) majority verdicts are needed. So getting at even two jurors wouldn't be enough on its own. Not only that, but if the jury couldn't reach a decision, we'd know that. So if the jury was got at, it has to been 10 of the 12 members who were nobbled.
So, it's possible that had we been in that courtroom, and listened to what the jury heard, then we'd have gone the same way.
You don’t say
I understand why the family's pissed. I'm pissed. You just have to see the bastards' reactions.
Of course they're pissed. In their shoes, I'd be angry beyond belief.
But the jury presumably had their reasons for making the decision they did.
Quite. What were the reasons? Someone has to ask.
I suspect if you ask the prosecuting lawyer, he will tell you.
The problem is that newspapers exist to sell advertising revenue. You will garner more views and more sales and more revenue by presenting this as a miscarriage of justice (and by the way, this works both ways, as in "how can this person have been imprisoned!") than by giving a measured analysis of why the jury went the way they did.
I hadn't realised that this is fake news. Sorry.
I'm not saying it's fake news.
But the people who heard all the evidence came to a different conclusion to you. Surely you must at least entertain the possibility that they are right, and you are wrong.
I do entertain that possibility. The issue is whether Joe Public does.The law is often an ass and those who administer it must take some responsibility.
The government ultimately administers it, and has the power to reform it. What did you expect “lawyers” to have done differently in this case?
Nothing. That's part of the problem. I'm obviously more senior to you in terms of years so have to look to my bed for rest. I have enjoyed the debate and wish you well in your chosen career. Night night.
@alterego what exactly are you upset about? Is merely the wording of the offence, and the inability to call the defendants “murderers”? Is that it?
The prison sentence between manslaughter and murder may very well be the same, so it can’t be that.
Like I said, in America “3rd degree Murder” is what we’d call manslaughter, and would apply in this case most likely.
We'll see what the sentence is but it's all so unnecessary making this a technical argument. Why can't we satisfy ourselves that the jury wasn't got at?
I don’t know whether the jury was got at or not. It very well may have. I was merely challenging the argument that it was “obvious”.
I’m currently going through the process of training to be a solicitor and I agree that the law is far too complicated and inaccessible, and thus most normal people don’t understand it. That’s wrong, but it’s good for lawyers.
If you are challenging the fact it was obvious that a guy being dragged down a road for a mile wouldn't result in death and those doing the dragging weren't aware of it i hope you get struck off before you even start
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
I don’t know the law at all, but it seems pretty obvious the jury were got at. They’re getting done for manslaughter, what sentence will that carry?
You’ve gone from “I don’t know the law at all” to “it seems obvious” in one sentence. What? Murder requires an intent to cause gbh or death. Quite a high bar to prove.
Yes I don’t know the law on double jeopardy at all, but it seems obvious the jury were got at. That’s what!
We weren't there. We didn't hear the case. All we see is the newspaper stories.
And remember that in the UK (unlike the US) majority verdicts are needed. So getting at even two jurors wouldn't be enough on its own. Not only that, but if the jury couldn't reach a decision, we'd know that. So if the jury was got at, it has to been 10 of the 12 members who were nobbled.
So, it's possible that had we been in that courtroom, and listened to what the jury heard, then we'd have gone the same way.
You don’t say
I understand why the family's pissed. I'm pissed. You just have to see the bastards' reactions.
Of course they're pissed. In their shoes, I'd be angry beyond belief.
But the jury presumably had their reasons for making the decision they did.
Quite. What were the reasons? Someone has to ask.
I suspect if you ask the prosecuting lawyer, he will tell you.
The problem is that newspapers exist to sell advertising revenue. You will garner more views and more sales and more revenue by presenting this as a miscarriage of justice (and by the way, this works both ways, as in "how can this person have been imprisoned!") than by giving a measured analysis of why the jury went the way they did.
I hadn't realised that this is fake news. Sorry.
I'm not saying it's fake news.
But the people who heard all the evidence came to a different conclusion to you. Surely you must at least entertain the possibility that they are right, and you are wrong.
I do entertain that possibility. The issue is whether Joe Public does.The law is often an ass and those who administer it must take some responsibility.
The government ultimately administers it, and has the power to reform it. What did you expect “lawyers” to have done differently in this case?
I have heard it stated that there have been some interesting developments, in recents years, of defense lawyers trying to chip away at the idea that actions can prove intent beyond reasonable doubt.
I don’t see how you can prove intent to kill. (The defendants acknowledged they were driving the car but said they were trying to shake the PC free from the strap he was tangled in vs trying to kill him). That gives you manslaughter (reckless disregard) but not murder
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
Double jeopardy was reformed in the 2003 Criminal Justice Act, so there can be further trials under certain circumstances:
there are demanding legal tests which must be met in ‘double jeopardy’ cases, and a special process to be followed. First, the rule has only been reformed for the most serious crimes such as murder and rape. A person cannot face a second trial after being acquitted of shoplifting, no matter how strong the new evidence! For crimes which do fall within the rules, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) must personally consent to an investigation being reopened. The DPP will consider not only the strength of the evidence, but also whether reopening the case is in the public interest.
The investigation can only lead to a fresh prosecution if ‘new and compelling’ evidence is uncovered. To be ‘new’, it must not have been available for the original prosecution. ‘Compelling’ means very strong, so that a conviction is highly probable. If the prosecution believes that a legal test can be met, they have to get the consent of the DPP to make an application to the Court of Appeal. They must then persuade the Court of Appeal to quash the original acquittal and order a retrial. Before making such an order, the Court of Appeal will consider not only the strength of the case, but also the public interest. For example, a new trial will not be granted to make up for incompetence in the original prosecution, or for a case so old that a fair trial is no longer possible.
Hopefully they will be stupid enough to get pissed and confess, therefore generating the "new and compelling" evidence.
I don't like on principle that reform. Double jeopardy should never have been messed with in my opinion. Like trying to mess with trial by jury.
Going to both agree and disagree with Philipp here....double jeapordy should not be a thing.......unless you can show the jury was nobbled
Nobbling a jury can, does and should carry a life sentence. If anyone has perverted the course of justice and it can be proven they should be sent down for life.
For once we agree
As I understand the case the defence was they did not realise they were dragging him.
Having ridden a quad bike I do not believe that is feasible
I suspect any jury given a chance to drive a quad bike without the weight dragging on a appropriate length of rope and with it would not have acquitted if not bent.
Of course the jury may not have been shown the difference in which case the prosecution was incompetent
The killers were in a car - they unhooked the quad bike and drove off, but unfortunately the pc was tangled in the rope
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
I don’t know the law at all, but it seems pretty obvious the jury were got at. They’re getting done for manslaughter, what sentence will that carry?
You’ve gone from “I don’t know the law at all” to “it seems obvious” in one sentence. What? Murder requires an intent to cause gbh or death. Quite a high bar to prove.
Yes I don’t know the law on double jeopardy at all, but it seems obvious the jury were got at. That’s what!
We weren't there. We didn't hear the case. All we see is the newspaper stories.
And remember that in the UK (unlike the US) majority verdicts are needed. So getting at even two jurors wouldn't be enough on its own. Not only that, but if the jury couldn't reach a decision, we'd know that. So if the jury was got at, it has to been 10 of the 12 members who were nobbled.
So, it's possible that had we been in that courtroom, and listened to what the jury heard, then we'd have gone the same way.
@Pagan2 the BBC article suggests that the Defence argument was that they was no intention to cause said harm, not that they did not realize they were dragging him.
Sorry what did they think that dragging a man along a road would do if they didnt think it would cause harm. Just about everyone has a friend that has come off a motorbike in full protective gear and been subject to road rash
As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.
“Intent” is not the same as “recklessness to an outcome”. The law is complicated, it isn’t simple, and your layman analogies are irrelevant here.
Manslaughter can result in a life sentence anyway if the judge deems it suitable. What is the problem?
Ah so in your world putting a noose around someones neck and pulling them up in the air is merely being reckless to an outcome. Death by dragging was just as common an execution method for lynch victims.
I don’t understand your point.
In your example, the prosecution would have to prove the defendant intended to cause gbh or death by their actions. The defence may argue that they didn’t, whether that is credible or not is another question.
Remember it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt.
Did the defendants in this case intend to cause gbh or kill the victim, or did they merely intend to get away, and were reckless to the possibility that the victim might get hurt, or even die? If its the latter then its manslaughter not murder.
So the fact that the bastards were so ignorant as to be uncomprehending that if you pulled a man behind a car at 40mph on tarmac, its not cuts and bruises but death is extenuating, making it manslaughter. That's a stretch however you approach it. Scum.
It’s not that they were ignorant. They just didn’t give a shit one way or the other
@Pagan2 the BBC article suggests that the Defence argument was that they was no intention to cause said harm, not that they did not realize they were dragging him.
Sorry what did they think that dragging a man along a road would do if they didnt think it would cause harm. Just about everyone has a friend that has come off a motorbike in full protective gear and been subject to road rash
As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.
“Intent” is not the same as “recklessness to an outcome”. The law is complicated, it isn’t simple, and your layman analogies are irrelevant here.
Manslaughter can result in a life sentence anyway if the judge deems it suitable. What is the problem?
Ah so in your world putting a noose around someones neck and pulling them up in the air is merely being reckless to an outcome. Death by dragging was just as common an execution method for lynch victims.
I don’t understand your point.
In your example, the prosecution would have to prove the defendant intended to cause gbh or death by their actions. The defence may argue that they didn’t, whether that is credible or not is another question.
Remember it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt.
Did the defendants in this case intend to cause gbh or kill the victim, or did they merely intend to get away, and were reckless to the possibility that the victim might get hurt, or even die? If its the latter then its manslaughter not murder.
So the fact that the bastards were so ignorant as to be uncomprehending that if you pulled a man behind a car at 40mph on tarmac, its not cuts and bruises but death is extenuating, making it manslaughter. That's a stretch however you approach it. Scum.
It’s not that they were ignorant. They just didn’t give a shit one way or the other
Isn't there a test that says if you perform an action that any reasonable person would conclude would lead to someone's death you can't plead ignorance? (Not very well written but you probably understand what I mean).
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
I don’t know the law at all, but it seems pretty obvious the jury were got at. They’re getting done for manslaughter, what sentence will that carry?
You’ve gone from “I don’t know the law at all” to “it seems obvious” in one sentence. What? Murder requires an intent to cause gbh or death. Quite a high bar to prove.
Yes I don’t know the law on double jeopardy at all, but it seems obvious the jury were got at. That’s what!
We weren't there. We didn't hear the case. All we see is the newspaper stories.
And remember that in the UK (unlike the US) majority verdicts are needed. So getting at even two jurors wouldn't be enough on its own. Not only that, but if the jury couldn't reach a decision, we'd know that. So if the jury was got at, it has to been 10 of the 12 members who were nobbled.
So, it's possible that had we been in that courtroom, and listened to what the jury heard, then we'd have gone the same way.
@Pagan2 the BBC article suggests that the Defence argument was that they was no intention to cause said harm, not that they did not realize they were dragging him.
Sorry what did they think that dragging a man along a road would do if they didnt think it would cause harm. Just about everyone has a friend that has come off a motorbike in full protective gear and been subject to road rash
As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.
“Intent” is not the same as “recklessness to an outcome”. The law is complicated, it isn’t simple, and your layman analogies are irrelevant here.
Manslaughter can result in a life sentence anyway if the judge deems it suitable. What is the problem?
Ah so in your world putting a noose around someones neck and pulling them up in the air is merely being reckless to an outcome. Death by dragging was just as common an execution method for lynch victims.
I don’t understand your point.
In your example, the prosecution would have to prove the defendant intended to cause gbh or death by their actions. The defence may argue that they didn’t, whether that is credible or not is another question.
Remember it has to be beyond all reasonable doubt.
Did the defendants in this case intend to cause gbh or kill the victim, or did they merely intend to get away, and were reckless to the possibility that the victim might get hurt, or even die? If its the latter then its manslaughter not murder.
So the fact that the bastards were so ignorant as to be uncomprehending that if you pulled a man behind a car at 40mph on tarmac, its not cuts and bruises but death is extenuating, making it manslaughter. That's a stretch however you approach it. Scum.
It’s not that they were ignorant. They just didn’t give a shit one way or the other
One has to hope the sentencing judge will take a very poor view of their attitude and their conduct.
There can't be a retrial surely? They've been acquitted, that's it, double jeopardy prevents a retrial.
I don’t know the law at all, but it seems pretty obvious the jury were got at. They’re getting done for manslaughter, what sentence will that carry?
You’ve gone from “I don’t know the law at all” to “it seems obvious” in one sentence. What? Murder requires an intent to cause gbh or death. Quite a high bar to prove.
Yes I don’t know the law on double jeopardy at all, but it seems obvious the jury were got at. That’s what!
We weren't there. We didn't hear the case. All we see is the newspaper stories.
And remember that in the UK (unlike the US) majority verdicts are needed. So getting at even two jurors wouldn't be enough on its own. Not only that, but if the jury couldn't reach a decision, we'd know that. So if the jury was got at, it has to been 10 of the 12 members who were nobbled.
So, it's possible that had we been in that courtroom, and listened to what the jury heard, then we'd have gone the same way.
Looks like the infamous Bournemouth beach crisis of early June had at most only a tiny impact on virus infection rates, as far as it is possible to tell.
Warning: That's an exceptionally user-hostile web-page. Not only does it auto-play videos (YUK), it also switches the sound on if you've got it switched off. And it does this repeatedly even if you switch the sound off again.
This is totally unacceptable. Don't click on the link.
Nothing like that happens on an iPad
Nor in Firefox.
Nor on my Chrome.
I just checked again. On my system, both Chrome and Microsoft Edge (I know, I know, no-one uses that..) show the behaviour I described. Opera doesn't. I don't currently have Firefox installed.
However, the point is that website should not attempt to autoplay videos, let alone fool around with your sound settings. That is completely unacceptable, and users shouldn't have to rely on the web-browser to protect them from such unacceptable behaviour.
I believe that Google removed the option from Chrome to disable video autoplay (presumably to protect Google's ad sales). I just immediately close all websites which try it. In the very rare cases where I really want to look at the page, I use Opera.
Why would anyone in this day and age be running either edge or chrome? I've been running Opera for 15 years, it's consistently been better than the competition.
I went away from Opera some time (10 years?) ago as it was a resource hog.
Perhaps it has changed :-).
But then I will never touch anything from a certain anti-virus package manufacturer between now and the crack of doomsday because I had to scrape one out manually in a procedure taking nearly a day went it went beserk on a family members' PC in the late 1990s.
Anyway Manslaughter can carry the same sentence as Murder anyway, just not the mandatory life sentence. Not sure what the issue is really.
Let's hope the judge hasn't been nobbled.
Even then the Attorney General now has the last word on sentencing if needed and if Boris thinks it is a weak sentence and wants to shore up the Sun and Mail vote and the Red Wall he and Cummings will just tell Braverman to impose life sentences on all 3
Deeply uneasy though I am about activist judges making up laws to suit their own prejudices, I am still more uneasy about the idea of politicians interfering with judicial processes for political gain.
As for non-politicians, especially thick ones, like Cummings, who thinks facts are unimportant...
Comments
If you want a 3rd degree murder offence, lobby the government into creating one.
The prison sentence between manslaughter and murder may very well be the same, so it can’t be that.
Like I said, in America “3rd degree Murder” is what we’d call manslaughter, and would apply in this case most likely.
But the people who heard all the evidence came to a different conclusion to you. Surely you must at least entertain the possibility that they are right, and you are wrong.
Is it merely not being able to call them murderers? If so, we need a 3rd degree murder offence, which we don’t have.
Courts can’t just simply invent stuff willy nilly.
I’m currently going through the process of training to be a solicitor and I agree that the law is far too complicated and inaccessible, and thus most normal people don’t understand it. That’s wrong, but it’s good for lawyers.
People learn from American movies.
Do you have any information on that?
They were convicted of manslaughter
I don’t see how you can prove intent to kill. (The defendants acknowledged they were driving the car but said they were trying to shake the PC free from the strap he was tangled in vs trying to kill him). That gives you manslaughter (reckless disregard) but not murder
They need to be taught a very clear lesson.
https://www.open.edu/openlearn/society-politics-law/law/what-double-jeopardy
He can't be charged with murder again, unless this new evidence is found.
I generally don't like New Labour wrinkles, but this one seems fairly well done - in that there have only been a modest number of cases.
I think that sits alongside 'retrial' rules.
Perhaps it has changed :-).
But then I will never touch anything from a certain anti-virus package manufacturer between now and the crack of doomsday because I had to scrape one out manually in a procedure taking nearly a day went it went beserk on a family members' PC in the late 1990s.
As for non-politicians, especially thick ones, like Cummings, who thinks facts are unimportant...