Manchester Airport police assault trial | Man found guilty of assaulting two female police officers

hammocity said:
I believe some of the 21 terrorist involved in 9/11 had no criminal records.

The Jury aren’t allowed to hear the past convictions of the person on trial but they can be told of their “good character”, how is that fair? Each case should be assessed on its merits, I know precedent forms a major part of law but this is not equitable.
Click to expand...
Thry absolutely can be told of previous convictions. Not sure where you’ve formed the view that they can’t. Whether they go in is up to the Judge based on relevance to the offence charged and how recent the previous offence was. It’s isn’t limited to previous convictions either, but can include other ‘reprehensible behaviour’.

Someone charged with rape is unlikely to have theft offences from ten years ago go in, but if they had convictions for serious sexual offences (at pretty much any time) then they almost certainly would.

It’s down to relevance, probity and propensity.

Here is a decent summary.

 
Last edited:
Ohrodneyrodney said:
I’m absolutely perplexed by this. It might make some sense where the evidence is refutable in some way. In this case the judge and everyone else can literally watch the offences being committed, so surely the lack of previous offences is completely irrelevant?
Click to expand...
Whether the evidence is refutable is entirely a matter for the jury. And it’s for a jury to decide if the lack of previous convictions is relevant. If the evidence is overwhelming what difference do you think someone having no previous convictions is going to make to the verdict?
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Thry absolutely can be told of previous convictions. Not sure where you’ve formed the view that they can’t. Whether they go in is up to the Judge based on relevance to the offence charged and how recent the previous offence was. It’s isn’t limited to previous convictions either, but can include other ‘reprehensible behaviour’.

Someone charged with rape is unlikely to have theft offences from ten years ago go in, but if they had convictions for serious sexual offences (at pretty much any time) then they almost certainly would.

It’s down to relevance, probity and propensity.

Here is a decent summary.

Click to expand...
Fair enough, I’ve probably seen it on TV years ago, I honestly thought previous convictions weren’t allowed to be divulged until the jury had made their decision, every day, school and all that.
 
hammocity said:
Fair enough, I’ve probably seen it on TV years ago, I honestly thought previous convictions weren’t allowed to be divulged until the jury had made their decision, every day, school and all that.
Click to expand...
Prior to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 there was a presumption that a defendant’s bad character didn’t go in.

The main exceptions to that were where a defendant gave a false impression to the court about their character e.g. saying “I would never do something like this” when giving evidence, or where the defendant adduced the conviction themselves, most commonly where they have previous convictions where they have always previously pleaded guilty and they are pleading not guilty on this occasion, or something that provides important context to their defence. For obvious reasons this wasn’t exercised frequently.

Codifying and widening the scope of bad character within the CJA ‘03 was part of a series of steps that started in the ‘90s which have redressed the balance in criminal proceedings away from the defence and towards the prosecution - other notable examples are negative inferences that can now be drawn from a defendant not answering questions in interview or not giving evidence in their defence.

I think all of these steps have been broadly in the interests of justice, and they also provide some factual context to the suggestion that the justice system is increasingly stacked towards defendants when it demonstrably is not.

It’s the same with sentencing, which has been inexorably on the increase for the last 30 years or so. All these strident predictions on this thread of a suspended sentence are part of that misinformation space. There is no way this will be a suspended sentence. Not for an ABH conviction against a police officer at an airport. The judge will give him a good kicking for that, and quite right too. A clear message needs to be sent out.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Prior to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 there was a presumption that a defendant’s bad character didn’t go in.

The main exceptions to that were where a defendant gave a false impression to the court about their character e.g. saying “I would never do something like this” when giving evidence, or where the defendant adduced the conviction themselves, most commonly where they have previous convictions where they have always previously pleaded guilty and they are pleading not guilty on this occasion, or something that provides important context to their defence. For obvious reasons this wasn’t exercised frequently.

Codifying and widening the scope of bad character within the CJA ‘03 was part of a series of steps that started in the ‘90s which have redressed the balance in criminal proceedings away from the defence and towards the prosecution - other notable examples are negative inferences that can now be drawn from a defendant not answering questions in interview or not giving evidence in their defence.

I think all of these steps have been broadly in the interests of justice, and they also provide some factual context to the notion that the justice system is increasingly stacked towards defendants when it demonstrably is not.

It’s the same with sentencing, which has been inexorably on the increase for the last 30 years or so. All these strident predictions on this thread of a suspended sentence are part of that misinformation space. There is no way this will be a suspended sentence. Not for an ABH conviction against a police officer at an airport. The judge will give him a good kicking for that, and quite right too. A clear message needs to be sent out.
Click to expand...
That’s good to know and a civil action against the Police for compensation shouldn’t even be considered, shouldn’t it?
 
hammocity said:
That’s good to know and a civil action against the Police for compensation shouldn’t even be considered, shouldn’t it?
Click to expand...
After a conviction? Absolutely no chance of an associated civil claim succeeding. It would be summarily dismissed before it got to a trial. It’s arguably an abuse of process to even commence such a claim and would have associated cost consequence for the claimant.

Any legal professional involved in such a claim is an embarrassment to the profession. And unquestionably shit as well.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
After a conviction? Absolutely no chance of an associated civil claim succeeding. It would be summarily dismissed before it got to a trial. It’s arguably an abuse of process to even commence such a claim and would have associated cost consequence for the claimant.

Any legal professional involved in such a claim is an embarrassment to the profession. And unquestionably shit as well.
Click to expand...
Thanks for explaining, appreciated.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
After a conviction? Absolutely no chance of an associated civil claim succeeding. It would be summarily dismissed before it got to a trial. It’s arguably an abuse of process to even commence such a claim and would have associated cost consequence for the claimant.

Any legal professional involved in such a claim is an embarrassment to the profession. And unquestionably shit as well.
Click to expand...
better-call-saul-breaking-bad.gif
 
Groke said:
What, that they were justified in getting pre-emptive strikes because they knew they were going to get kicked in the head later
Click to expand...
I didn’t say it was justified. I said it formed part of the evidence and the video was played to the jury several times.

They might well have decided it was irrelevant. We’ll never know. But they certainly weren’t instructed to ignore it, as the other guy said.
 
mexico1970 said:
Can we make sure the twat who was found guilt isn't placed with his mates so he can do hard time instead of treading water bollocks, could we at least do that?
Click to expand...

I read a report early this week about two lads who had stabbed a 15 year old to death and got 16 years each or something along those lines. Sent to the same jail to then go on and attack someone else inside. Now who made that ridiculous decision? Why have they been sent to the same jail! It just defies belief that decisions like this are being made.
 
Millwallawayveteran1988 said:
I read a report early this week about two lads who had stabbed a 15 year old to death and got 16 years each or something along those lines. Sent to the same jail to then go on and attack someone else inside. Now who made that ridiculous decision? Why have they been sent to the same jail! It just defies belief that decisions like this are being made.
Click to expand...

Kids get split up for talking in class, this fucker should be doing hard time.
 
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