A machete attack to head doesn't count as attempted murder??

Ridiculous verdict.

It's difficult to think of an act more likely to cause murder than repeatedly hacking someone in the head with a machete.

Not quite sure what the judge was playing at by not admitting the evidence in relation to his previous use of the machete (I'm pretty sure the law has changed on that), which pretty much tells you all you need to know about the offensive weapon acquittal and the idea he was on his way to do a bit of late-night gardening.
 
yeseye said:
That was for the last time he attacked 2 people with a machete, he’s also a convicted rapist.

He will be sentenced tomorrow .

I hope he’s given the maximum sentence for wounding with intent,
Which is Life but I won’t hold my breath.

The justice system in this country is an absolute joke.
Click to expand...
Ah thanks, I must have misread the sentence bit. Fingers crossed he gets a very long sentance.
 
What if he had killed the officer?

Would he have literally got away with murder based on the same evidence?
 
dave_blue12 said:
You guys want something to get upset about?

Instead of swallowing Johnson’s bullshit about being tough on crime why not take a look at the reality

Click to expand...


He’s only just formed a government just over a month ago?

I know your position is to make every little thing Johnson and Brexit’s fault but you seriously need to grow up.

The problem is decades of liberalism, not the last 6 weeks.
 
Paladin said:
I've done jury service twice, serving on seven cases in total. One juror was in his second week and insisted on being the foreman. He delivered a guilty verdict to the judge. We had to correct him and tell him the jury found the accused not guilty.

In the same case, two jurors hit it off with each other, and didn't discuss the case. They just sat back and chatted with each other. They gave their personal verdict at the start of the case, and wouldn't change their minds.

In the same case, the judge described the victim as 'defective'. He explained that this is a legal term which means the victim is of low mental capacity and is unable to make certain decisions for herself. The government / law in effect takes responsibility and acts in the person's best interests. The girl had Down's syndrome, and had sexual relations with an eighteen year old man. He was accused of rape. Two jurors said it was offensive to label the girl 'defective', and for that reason would not find the boy guilty.

In another case, a man received a television from another man at 3am, and said he had no suspicion that the TV was stolen. The jurors believed him.

Many jurors are unable to follow a case, yet failed to take notes of the salient points.

It was enlightening. I certainly wouldn't want to be at the mercy of one of our juries.
Click to expand...

I've done it twice, and had some very similar experiences.
One we were pretty certain the defendant was not mentally competent, and after he was found guilty, the judge pretty much seemed to agree with that by referring him for assessment.
There was one where two jurors read books in the jury room, having decided their verdict early on.
At least one case we may have been watching too much TV drama, as we couldn't work out why the charge was what it was, and why an obvious point was addressed.

About 2/3 of the jurors were people I'd be happy with having on a jury!

I do like the Secret Barrister, he's usually precise in his statements, as long as people don't reinterpret them to suit themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.