Posts by ScottY
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Are you serious?
Of course not. But my point is that you can excuse a person for letting their attention lapse momentarily. It was a three month trial. Who has the concentration and stamina to be always attentive?
-
At least one juror, it seems, was literally asleep during proceedings. Like I says, court reporters don't say these things lightly -- I can't really recall it before.
I agree it's possible a couple of jurors were less than diligent.
But two things:
Firstly, it was a three-month trial. If I'd had to sit in the same chair for three months I'd have had a sleep too. In fact I'd have been in a coma by the end of it. No amount of smelling salts would revive me.
Also, the decision of the jury has to be unanimous. Even if we suppose a couple of them were a bit lackadasical, it took 12 to convict or acquit. Were all 12 complete dummies? If so then Bain should have bought a ticket for tonight's Big Wednesday.
-
Ur, ScottY - the other 2 juries?
*It is not just this last trial.*
And the Privy Council. Were they asleep?
-
van Beynan isn't the only person who sat through the entire trial and heard all the evidence. There were also 12 jurors.
I'm uncomfortable with the view I've often heard expressed (and which van Beynan's article does nothing to dispel) that they must have all been thick, or asleep at the wheel, or blind to the obvious. But all 12 of them?
I'm not saying Bain didn't do it. he may well have. I actually haven't a clue, because I've not heard all the evidence - only the bits fed to me by the media. But to suggest it was obvious he was guilty as sin goes too far.
Many journos think their job gives them a better instinct for the truth than the ordinary bloke/woman on the street. And for some maybe that's true. But judging by what passes as journalism in this country's print media, I'm not convinced that van Beynan's view is any more reliable that that of the 12 jurors.
And as a last comment on the Bain case, I'm tired of the speculation. Only one person can ever know what happened - and maybe even he doesn't know any more. He's served 13 years behind bars, time he won't get back and time that he probably won't receive compensation for. No doubt some people would argue justice has been done.
-
Is there anything that makes you think that that would be illegal? The courts and police aren't immune from public scrutiny.
I agree, but nor can the public say anything they want about a live case.
In theory any expression of opinion on someone's guilt or innocence might be at risk of breaching the sub judice rule. It becomes a question of degree, depending on what is said and how prejudicial the comment or statement might be.
But almost nobody reads Franks' blog anyway, so it's probably a moot point.
And, to cover my own backside, I wasn't seriously suggesting he was breaching the rule, because I really don't know enough to make a call. But you expect members of the legal profession to steer well away from commenting on live cases. That's what surprised me about Franks' blog.
-
That he realises the rule doesn't prevent his discussing that? =)
Well maybe, and I'm not a media lawyer, so am hardly an expert on sub judice.
Still, surely Franks was arguably commenting on the facts of the case by stating that Weatherston was clearly the killer (remember, before Weatherston admitted the act in court) and that he was likely to manufacture an insanity defence to get off. All while the matter was before the court.
Can't we pin something on Franks? Please?
-
Good God, so much for the sub judice doctrine...
What's Stephen Franks' excuse? He's a lawyer after all.
-
So if I can't make lame-arse jokes at my own expense, who can I make them at?
The taxpayer's expense, dummie! Always the taxpayer's.
I'm surprised an inveterate pinko socialist like you even needs to ask.
-
Incidentally, is Lauaki injured or just not selected?
Playing for the Junior ABs at the moment. Just played against Japan.
Things would be at a pretty low ebb to have him back though. That very topic was the subject of some heated debate on another thread a week or two ago, and I don't wish to go there again. (hang on, is that one of those paralipsis thingies Stephen talked about?)
The Hinton article is plain embarrassing and makes me cringe. Why should we care what our players sing? And, let's be honest, our national song is a bit lame. If we have to sing something can't we spice it up a bit?
I like what the Scots sing before their tests (yes, I know it's not their actual national anthem):
O flower of Scotland
When will we see
Your like again
That fought and died for
Your wee bit hill and glen
And stood against him
Proud Edward's army
And sent him homeward
Tae think againNow that's a song I'd proudly stand up and sing.
-
I don't know what rules of evidence were used in the Nicholas case (a new Evidence Act was passed in 2006), but the new law is supposed to make it easier to use prior convictions (under section 49(1)).
Whether it does is another matter, because there is still section 43(1), which states:
The prosecution may offer propensity evidence about a defendant in a criminal proceeding only if the evidence has a probative value in relation to an issue in dispute in the proceeding which outweighs the risk that the evidence may have an unfairly prejudicial effect on the defendant.
You'd think a prior conviction for rape might have had significant probative value in the Nicholas case.
Still, I'm not a criminal lawyer, and I don't have all the details of the case and how/why the evidential issues were decided.
I've mentioned before that the rules are designed to protect defendants. Not victims (or if I was a defence lawyer I'd say "alleged victims").