Judge's direction

[glojo]

Are there any legal experts that could answer the following question please?

If a Judge directs a jury to find a charge not proved (Or the defendant not guilty ), can the jury disagree?

Can the jury turn round to the Judge and demand that they hear the case, or must they be like lemmings and simply comply.

My question solely relates to whether the jury has the right to disagree with the order, not on the reasons why the Judge will make the decision?

Regards,
John the inquisitive

 

[C240Sport97]

The Jury has to agree and do what the Judge tells them. They have no right to independent thought or action

 

[mark.t]

Are there any legal experts that could answer the following question please?

If a Judge directs a jury to find a charge not proved (Or the defendant not guilty ), can the jury disagree?

Can the jury turn round to the Judge and demand that they hear the case, or must they be like lemmings and simply comply.

My question solely relates to whether the jury has the right to disagree with the order, not on the reasons why the Judge will make the decision?

Regards,
John the inquisitive

I was under the impression that a jury's role was to choose a verdict guilty or not guilty on the evidence presented to them, ....if the evidence in question ,is in question ,then there is no case to ansaw . so it is up to the system to direct the jury....if they demanded to here a case surely it would not be a case in this respect but a mere storey.

 

[glojo]

I was under the impression that a jury's role was to choose a verdict guilty or not guilty on the evidence presented to them, ....if the evidence in question ,is in question ,then there is no case to ansaw . so it is up to the system to direct the jury....if they demanded to here a case surely it would not be a case in this respect but a mere storey.

I have personal knowledge of an example where one Police Officer arrested ten very nasty people who were mostly represented by seperate, highly qualified barristers. During a whole day of cross examination a defence barrister craftily questioned this officer about all ten defendants time and again, refering to each individual for a brief second, before going on to the next person.

The barrister in question was tasked with defending just two of the ten, but continually qustioned the officer all day about the ten defendants. The next morning the jury was asked to retire whilst 'points of law' were discussed. This barrister pointed out to the judge that on one occassion the Police Officer had said that defendant one had done something, when in actual fact it was defendant two!!! This reference was only made on one occassion and throughout the whole day of cross examination all the defendants had been correctly referred to, and correctly identified, but this barrister had cleverly manipulated the error and no one, but no one spotted the mistake.

It could clearly have been sorted out simply by re-asking the same question, (the officer concerned was still being cross examined) but no, the defence submitted that the judge direct the jury to find the two defendants not guilty (lots of other evidence that connected these two villians, DNA and other eye witnesses) Solely because of this one small mistake the judge directed the jury to find the two defendants not guilty!! During the original incident these two had badly beaten a WPC, breaking her arm and they simply laughed as they left the dock. The officer that made the mistake was not best happy, the prosecuter apologised for not spotting the mistake and after the trial the Judge called all the officers back into the court and commended them for their bravery, but is this justice??? Or is it merely a story??

John

 

[mark.t]

the job of the police officer on that day was to identify which thug was doing "what "where" and "when ...this was surely a failure of the officer to abide by basic rules of identification, not tar someone or all with the same brush, which he did to his and the victims cost, this is when it became a storey and lost its credibility, if the jury demanded to hear the rest of the trial and the judge agreed then surely the judges credibility would be at stake, it would be on his head ...and judges are more akin to someone else losing theres ( in bygone times) the prosecution can only admit a mistake was made just one or one of many who knows ....

 

[glojo]

the job of the police officer on that day was to identify which thug was doing "what "where" and "when ...this was surely a failure of the officer to abide by basic rules of identification, ..

I don't know if you have ever been cross examined for a whole day in a crown court six months after an event that involved multiple defendants, but trust me when I say it is very easy to stand back and criticise. A court of law should be about convicting the guilty and making sure there are no injustices.

In this particular case the officer was still under oath, still giving evidence and if required could quite simply have clarified what was a mere slip of the tongue.

The defence barrister was continually asking different questions about who was where and during this long cross examination said that Mr Brown sat in the rear nearside seat of a Police vehicle and Mr Smith sat in the left rear seat of the vehicle, the officer agreed with this......

and indeed if that had been the only question,

and if it was asked in a cool calm manner, then the seating arrangements could have been clarified, but the barrister played with ALL ten names continually asking rapid fire questions, with the deliberate intention of trickery. I say this because these questions were answered correctly time and again.......... The right person, in the right place, but no doubt, exhaustion, or confusion eventually led to the one minor slip.

The prosecuter could have clarified what the defence had asked, but no one, NO ONE noticed. I am all in favour of justice, but to me that was not justice.

Justice would have been to merely ask the officer to clarify who sat where, as I keep saying, this person was still under oath?

I personally could not criticise the Police, we are all human and I guarantee that if I gave you ten names to remember, then questioned you for a whole day on those ten names, you would be in tears within an hour, tears of frustration and humiliation!!!

I am asking this question because of what has happened today in another crown court where to me there appears to be a terrible miscarriage of so called justice??

John

 

[scumbag]

the law is there to protect people. the judge is the impartial view in these circumstances. when they direct a jury it is becasue they know the law and are directing the jury so that they do not fall foul of the law. this is what makes the system work. nobody else can direct the jury. if the jury feels it is unable to follow the judge then they have the freedom to do so, and he will declare a mistrial! but a mistrial does not confer the honour that the defendant is innocent, it means the law has failed but he is still "only presumed innocent".

a judge always directs a jury before they retire to consider their verdict. he does this after his summing up. it is his job to point out the relevent parts of the law and to mantain the impartiality for the defendant who has pleaded innocent. a judge will only direct a verdict on innocent if there is no other view that he is able to do.

I would assume that you are referring to the rape case. this is where the victim was unable to confirm that she did not give consent. therefore if the trail resumed after this evidence and the jury was to side with her view, they would find the defendent guilty of a crime they did not have evidence to convict on. the element of reseasonable doubt. so the judge has to tell the jury what to say in this case. he cannot expect them to know the law.

it does not mean he was innocnet nor guilty, nor does it infer the women was not raped as is being portrayed by the press. it merely means that the evidnce that was used produced an elemet of doubt which could not be over ridden by positive evidencnce. Imagine if the case had continued! you could easily have put a innocent man away.

the law looks upon innocence as this. it is better to have 10 guilty men free than 1 innocent man jailed!

 

[glojo]

the law looks upon innocence as this. it is better to have 10 guilty men free than 1 innocent man jailed!

Hi scumbag,
Thank you very much indeed for the excellent reply. I totally agree with your last sentiment, I cannot begin to imagine the torment of an innocent man being convicted.

Rape is a terrible, terrible act, yet it is also a difficult offence to prove, usually it ends up with one person's word against anothers.

I am indeed baffled by today's acquittal, but I wonder if we are being told all the facts.

Surely if a person, male or female is in no fit state to give consent, then consent quite simply cannot be given??? What about this so called date rape drug that leaves no trace in your system?

Is this judge saying that you can ply a person full of drink and then have sex simply because they were too drunk to know what is happening?

Again I repeat I am not fully aware of the circumstances, and I do concur with your sentiments.

Regards,
John

 

[scumbag]

from what has been reported so far, the court has been told that the victim was unable to confirm or deny (good'ol yanks to thank for that wording!) that she gave or did not give consent due to her state of alcohol induced situation that night.

altho we dont have all the facts, a statement from the court was issued, and that was what was reported. it is being claimed by the media and twisted parties, that the judge is infereing that if you are drunk you are unable to make a decsions. however the court statement is quite clear!

"The Victim was unable to remember whether she gave consent or not and was not able to confirm that she didn't!" this must not be misconstrued that she is wrong either. she gave her complaint in good faith and in no way is this to her detriment. the reporting of this case, IMO is leaving a lot to be desired.

i wouldnt want to be a judge tho. you cant win can you! for every right person you please you get another right person upset! they must have think skin. it's not like the barristers who can make sides. at least they have the abilty to say i belive the victim/defendant and i was fooled etc. a judge can't. and if he gets it wrong he gets slated, seems they are not allowed to make a mistake! wish i was that good. have you noticed how the jury never gets the blame?

remember M jackson? they slated Him and the prosecution, but not the jury who found all his charges Not Guilty! and he still gets canned! but they moan aboiut the judge allowing and not allowing evidnece to be heard. they all forgot that one witness was a liar and could not be trusted, and this was where the evidence to make the charges came from.


i was annoyed the other week, when some judge type said they should bring back hanging for shooting a policeman! nobody deserves to be shot doing thier job and i appreciate police do get to these things and so could be in the firing line, but what makes them different to any other innocent person who gets shot? if you think hanging is suitable for those who kill in cold blood then thats that, you cannot then say, if it was police only, how is that fair?

 

[glojo]

"The Victim was unable to remember whether she gave consent or not and was not able to confirm that she didn't!" this must not be misconstrued that she is wrong either. she gave her complaint in good faith and in no way is this to her detriment. the reporting of this case, IMO is leaving a lot to be desired.

I understand what you are saying and as you rightly point out, the reporting is not being fair.. surprise, surprise!!!

It seems strange that this actually got as far as it did??? I again wonder if it was a nervous witness??

She must have made the original complaint and she 'must' have been asked if she gave any type of consent, verbal or otherwise.

I recall a big furore over the releasing of names in relation to rape cases and once more this has happened. This man is now to be assumed innocent, yet he has been vilified by just about every forrm of media??

Thanks again for your very constructive post,
John

 

[scumbag]

its difficult really, but i feel the media is now playing to an audeince. the can inform but they dont, they glamorise. ITV is so bad i dont watch thier news at all.

i really have a huge problem with Jremey Vine on radio 2. he just antagonises by being deliberatly opposite.

the word balance has gone, reporters no longer report. the feel they are journolists and need to explain and add comment, instead of reporting what they know! and poor old Gearoge best! he cant even pass away without everyone knwoing. why dont ehy leave it till they know. and they will be remembering his ways after his football wont they? he did what he thought was right and has lived his life like that! I think he enjoyed himself!

Mind you, in a fair and balanced way, hope they rip off Gary Glitters head, no point wasting a bullet is there?

 

[NormanB]

.............sticking head above the parapet here!

If (and I use the word advisedly) the young lady was inebriated AND gave consent to the act AND then subsequently claims this was not 'informed consent' because she was too drunk to make a rational decision, I am afraid the law cannot offer her protection. She has a responsibility in this - she chose to get drunk.

If this is not the case then it would be an acceptable defence for an inebriated driver to say I did not make a rational decision to drive - I was too pissed - therefore I was not 'responsible' for the offence ergo you cannot prosecute me and I can keep my licence.

However I am no lawyer, nor am I politically correct so the above is probably all bollocks.

 

[mark.t]

I don't know if you have ever been cross examined for a whole day in a crown court six months after an event that involved multiple defendants, but trust me when I say it is very easy to stand back and criticise. A court of law should be about convicting the guilty and making sure there are no injustices.

In this particular case the officer was still under oath, still giving evidence and if required could quite simply have clarified what was a mere slip of the tongue.

The defence barrister was continually asking different questions about who was where and during this long cross examination said that Mr Brown sat in the rear nearside seat of a Police vehicle and Mr Smith sat in the left rear seat of the vehicle, the officer agreed with this......

and indeed if that had been the only question,

and if it was asked in a cool calm manner, then the seating arrangements could have been clarified, but the barrister played with ALL ten names continually asking rapid fire questions, with the deliberate intention of trickery. I say this because these questions were answered correctly time and again.......... The right person, in the right place, but no doubt, exhaustion, or confusion eventually led to the one minor slip.
The prosecuter could have clarified what the defence had asked, but no one, NO ONE noticed. I am all in favour of justice, but to me that was not justice.
Justice would have been to merely ask the officer to clarify who sat where, as I keep saying, this person was still under oath?

I personally could not criticise the Police, we are all human and I guarantee that if I gave you ten names to remember, then questioned you for a whole day on those ten names, you would be in tears within an hour, tears of frustration and humiliation!!!

I am asking this question because of what has happened today in another crown court where to me there appears to be a terrible miscarriage of so called justice??
John

this is why they have note books

imagine the injustice if he where about to be hanged .....or the wrong sentence was given to the wrong man

as with any large organisation things go astray I mean .... how many people have died in nursing homes and not been found for days //or the women who died in a hospital toilet and was not found for 3 days....and the excuse no one noticed.

no what happened today happens everyday in some part of this jewel, things go astray ... things are misinterpreted and lives remain cheated, in all walks of life ......if you have 10 patients each on slightly different medication but each essential to the recovery of the patient ...but the nurse got it wrong and someone god forbid died ..after he//she worked a 18 hour shift and all that life throws at them .when they do the round they check notes and confirm who is who ,but they get this wrong somtimes..where would the justice be their ......if the nurse gets it wrong, that's it good night Vienna, would it be murder //manslaughter...in this case the police officer gets it wrong then their may be another chance later on for a rematch ..thses police officer need to be up to speed .... shape up or ship out .....