Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

equationgirl said:
It wasn't that the fiscal did a shit job the first time round, the judge took a decision that some questioned whether he really had the authority to make. Yes, sinclair was already in prison but it didn't mean he shouldn't be prosecuted for committing two horrific crimes.
Click to expand...

Double jeapody is a decent concept though. Granted the accused in the cases both in England and Scotland are wrongun's but its a slippery slope. If you are going to prosecute get it right first time.
 
gosub said:
Double jeapody is a decent concept though. Granted the accused in the cases both in England and Scotland are wrongun's but its a slippery slope. If you are going to prosecute get it right first time.
Click to expand...
Yep. Changing that has made for bad law and increased the scope for state abuse of power. That the law was changed because of the Stephen Lawrence case makes it emotionally hard to oppose the change, but it was still wrong to do.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
Yep. Changing that has made for bad law and increased the scope for state abuse of power. That the law was changed because of the Stephen Lawrence case makes it emotionally hard to oppose the change, but it was still wrong to do.
Click to expand...

Don't know about this. Are there many documented cases of the state abusing its power by carrying our retrials?
 
Raheem said:
Don't know about this. Are there many documented cases of the state abusing its power by carrying our retrials?
Click to expand...
The UK is in a very small minority around the world in allowing double jeopardy, which it didn't allow for around 800 years. In the 10 years it's been allowed, it's not been abused. Yet.

One of the many examples of the Blair govt trampling on basic principles in response to populism. The real story of the failure of the Lawrence case was not the failure of the legal system, but the failure of the racist police force.
 
Grandma Death said:
From a legal standpoint is that it now? He could never be retried? Or this hearing scrutinized?
Click to expand...
About the only way this could go to a third trial would be if the prosecution had evidence the jury had been bribed or otherwise interfered with. Absent that, this is over and should be over. A third trial would be a complete joke.
 
dunno, was just wondering theoretically since House of Lords is highest court, but I'm not sure whether this sort of case could go before it.
 
two sheds said:
dunno, was just wondering theoretically since House of Lords is highest court, but I'm not sure whether this sort of case could go before it.
Click to expand...
To overrule a jury's acquittal? There would need to be very strong grounds for the cps to take this further. I don't know of any.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
The UK is in a very small minority around the world in allowing double jeopardy, which it didn't allow for around 800 years. In the 10 years it's been allowed, it's not been abused. Yet.

One of the many examples of the Blair govt trampling on basic principles in response to populism. The real story of the failure of the Lawrence case was not the failure of the legal system, but the failure of the racist police force.
Click to expand...

True, although you missed out "corrupt". All the same, it doesn't seem like the right policy response to that would be to insist that police racism (or corruption, or incompetence etc) is simply good luck for murderers.

On the other hand, I do find it hard to see how allowing double jeopardy might, *in itself*, lead to injustice.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
To overrule a jury's acquittal? There would need to be very strong grounds for the cps to take this further. I don't know of any.
Click to expand...

perhaps to challenge the ruling that the circumstances of the £50 grand should have been brought before the jury?

dunno as i say though.
 
I dont get the judges comments on consent. Didnt he say drunken consent is still consent? I thought the laws around consent whilst not being of fit body and mind were clear on this?
 
Raheem said:
On the other hand, I do find it hard to see how allowing double jeopardy might, *in itself*, lead to injustice.
Click to expand...
You have your day in court and are given the chance to clear your name. That's the principle that's been thrown out. Being tried once seriously fucks with your life. Being tried twice might totally ruin it, even if you're found not guilty both times, so at whatever point in the future this rule is applied and the accused is acquitted the second time as well, that will be an injustice. That amounts to state persecution.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
You have your day in court and are given the chance to clear your name. That's the principle that's been thrown out. Being tried once seriously fucks with your life. Being tried twice might totally ruin it, even if you're found not guilty both times, so at whatever point in the future this rule is applied and the accused is acquitted the second time as well, that will be an injustice. That amounts to state persecution.
Click to expand...

Yes, but if being tried once seriously fucks with your life, maybe the logical thing is to never put people who are not guilty on trial. There's an obvious difficulty, though.
 
Grandma Death said:
Dont know. Im asking. It seemed a key part of the prosecution first time around? Although they argued she didnt give clear consent?
Click to expand...
Think the argument first time round was that she was not conscious when the intercourse took place. There was never any evidence that she wasn't conscious. What there was was a very misguided defence team attacking her and calling her a liar, when the defence that she had been conscious but didn't remember because of an alcohol-related blackout always seemed the obvious line to take. My reading of that when I read up on the first case was that the jury convicted Evans because he was clearly such a cunt and they didn't want to believe him and disliked intensely his attack on his accuser. He is still a total cunt for that night's activities, rapist or not.
 
Raheem said:
Yes, but if being tried once seriously fucks with your life, maybe the logical thing is to never put people who are not guilty on trial. There's an obvious difficulty, though.
Click to expand...
The state gets one go. Its scope for fucking with people is there, in that it is deemed necessary to allow prosecution, but limited. It's the compromise that most countries have, tbh. In the US it's written into the constitution as a basic right, as it is in many other places
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

HeAthen
BBC accused of antisemitism
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
4K
ska invita
ska invita
hitmouse
Rotten behaviour from Hello Fresh
Replies
2
Views
308
elbows
elbows
Pickman's model
Members of Britain's richest family get prison sentences
Replies
12
Views
714
stavros
S
Buddy Bradley
How long before we get a proper Tory-style sleaze gaffe from Labour?
Replies
0
Views
211
Buddy Bradley
Buddy Bradley
Nigel
First Sikh Court To Be Established In Britain: London
Replies
15
Views
675
tonysingh
tonysingh
Back
Top Bottom