Water Aid On The 12Th Day Of Chistmas...
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Judge's Direction To Find Not Guilty Of Murder.
Perhaps NJ could help. Could a judge decide that the evidence for murder was not sound, and then direct the jury to find 'not guilty'? Perhaps on the grounds of a 'self-defence' argument?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Atheist. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
See here:
https:/
In the case of a 'self defence' argument, it is normally for the jury alone to decide upon whether or not injury (or death) came about solely through the use of 'reasonable force' used in self defence. A judge would only be able to accede to a defence request to rule that there was no case to answer in such a case if there was a clear legal precedent in place (or, of course, if the prosecution had made no attempt to prove otherwise).
Possibly relevant:
https:/
https:/
In the case of a 'self defence' argument, it is normally for the jury alone to decide upon whether or not injury (or death) came about solely through the use of 'reasonable force' used in self defence. A judge would only be able to accede to a defence request to rule that there was no case to answer in such a case if there was a clear legal precedent in place (or, of course, if the prosecution had made no attempt to prove otherwise).
Possibly relevant:
https:/
Corby; I'm not sure. This is a fictional scenario. The event was a self-defence incident, with no intent to kill. The charge is murder. The trial seems to hang on the defence establishing that there was no intent to kill, and no intent to seriously harm the victim other than a wish to protect the accused from imminent physical harm from an open knife and verbal threats to himself and his granddaughter.
For someone to be convicted of murder, under English law, there must have been 'intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm' upon the part of the defendant:
https:/
https:/
Thanks, Buen. I've done a fair bit of online resarch. I'd really like to hear from a judgy type who knows a bit about what a judgy type would be able to do if he thought the prosecution case was rubbish. I think he would be abe to direct the jury on the grounds of no legal case to answer. But I continue to welcome responses from anyone here.
Both NJ and Barmaid have done a lot of criminal work.
so I can put my oar in - yes the defence can say there is no case to answer but I cant remember what the procedure is - does the judge flounce out in a judgy flouncey way or does he do it by a direction to the jury
Also occurs in civil procedure - The Randy one tried it - and was told there was ( a case to answer - oo-er Prinny !) - still called non-suiting.
so I can put my oar in - yes the defence can say there is no case to answer but I cant remember what the procedure is - does the judge flounce out in a judgy flouncey way or does he do it by a direction to the jury
Also occurs in civil procedure - The Randy one tried it - and was told there was ( a case to answer - oo-er Prinny !) - still called non-suiting.
Thanks, PP.
I am wondering if the jury would be present to hear a submission of no case to answer by the defence (probably after the prosecution had finished its case), and how the judge would make his direction (would he go into detail or simply announce that the prosecution had decided not to challenge the submission?).
One case where I was a juror ended mysteriously when a witness was allowed to say something that he shouldn't, and the judge simply ended the trial without explanation.
I am wondering if the jury would be present to hear a submission of no case to answer by the defence (probably after the prosecution had finished its case), and how the judge would make his direction (would he go into detail or simply announce that the prosecution had decided not to challenge the submission?).
One case where I was a juror ended mysteriously when a witness was allowed to say something that he shouldn't, and the judge simply ended the trial without explanation.
I've found answer to one of my own questions (Defence-Barrister.co.uk)
"In the Crown Court, the defence advocate (or defendant in person if unrepresented) will make the submission to the judge in the absence of the jury and the prosecution representative will respond.
If the application succeeds (i.e. the judge agrees that there is no case to answer), the jury will return and be instructed by the judge to return a verdict of not guilty."
"In the Crown Court, the defence advocate (or defendant in person if unrepresented) will make the submission to the judge in the absence of the jury and the prosecution representative will respond.
If the application succeeds (i.e. the judge agrees that there is no case to answer), the jury will return and be instructed by the judge to return a verdict of not guilty."
Yes you're largely there.
The question of whether a killing was committed as "self-defence" would be one for the jury. They would hear the evidence from both sides and decide.
"No case to answer" is different. If, at the close of the prosecution case, the defence believe that insufficient evidence has been adduced to convict then the defence can ask the judge to consider that there is no case to answer. The judge can also make this consideration without being asked. The principle to be considered when answering the question is whether the jury, having heard the prosecution evidence as it stands and then being properly directed by the judge, could (but not necessarily would) convict the defendant. If the answer is "No" then the jury is directed to return a Not Guilty verdict. If the answer is "Yes" then the trial continues and the defence can present its evidence.
A similar principle operates in the Magistrates' court, though in that court the Bench has to be asked to make the consideration and cannot make it of its own volition. In many respects the Magistrates' task is more onerous than that of a jury because they are judges of both matters of fact (i.e. what evidence do they prefer to believe) and matters of law (as in this example). Sometimes this causes them a conflict. For example, they may be asked to consider (as a matter of law) whether a particular piece of evidence is admissible or nor. To make that decision they may have to hear details of what it is and how it was gained, If they decide it is inadmissible they must erase it from their mind when considering their verdict. A jury does not have that problem as the judge rules on matters of law whilst the jury is absent from the courtroom.
The question of whether a killing was committed as "self-defence" would be one for the jury. They would hear the evidence from both sides and decide.
"No case to answer" is different. If, at the close of the prosecution case, the defence believe that insufficient evidence has been adduced to convict then the defence can ask the judge to consider that there is no case to answer. The judge can also make this consideration without being asked. The principle to be considered when answering the question is whether the jury, having heard the prosecution evidence as it stands and then being properly directed by the judge, could (but not necessarily would) convict the defendant. If the answer is "No" then the jury is directed to return a Not Guilty verdict. If the answer is "Yes" then the trial continues and the defence can present its evidence.
A similar principle operates in the Magistrates' court, though in that court the Bench has to be asked to make the consideration and cannot make it of its own volition. In many respects the Magistrates' task is more onerous than that of a jury because they are judges of both matters of fact (i.e. what evidence do they prefer to believe) and matters of law (as in this example). Sometimes this causes them a conflict. For example, they may be asked to consider (as a matter of law) whether a particular piece of evidence is admissible or nor. To make that decision they may have to hear details of what it is and how it was gained, If they decide it is inadmissible they must erase it from their mind when considering their verdict. A jury does not have that problem as the judge rules on matters of law whilst the jury is absent from the courtroom.
Thank you, NJ. Very helpful.
In my case the man is to be tried for murder. The reader knows that he acted in self-defence, but there were apparently no eye-witnesses and so only the defendant's word for what happened. Forensic evidence gives no indication. The prosecution case is based on establishing that the defendant has a history of online sex-chatting which explains his being not the apparently respectable old man he appears, but a man inflamed with desire for a young woman who happens to be the ex of the victim. Defence counsel advises that a submission for no case to answer for murder should be made; if it is turned down, then the trial will continue with a jury.
Is it plausible that the judge would agree a 'no case', where there is no direct evidence of 'murder'? Or more likely that it would be considered a jury matter?
In my case the man is to be tried for murder. The reader knows that he acted in self-defence, but there were apparently no eye-witnesses and so only the defendant's word for what happened. Forensic evidence gives no indication. The prosecution case is based on establishing that the defendant has a history of online sex-chatting which explains his being not the apparently respectable old man he appears, but a man inflamed with desire for a young woman who happens to be the ex of the victim. Defence counsel advises that a submission for no case to answer for murder should be made; if it is turned down, then the trial will continue with a jury.
Is it plausible that the judge would agree a 'no case', where there is no direct evidence of 'murder'? Or more likely that it would be considered a jury matter?
//Is it plausible that the judge would agree a 'no case', where there is no direct evidence of 'murder'? Or more likely that it would be considered a jury matter?//
From your description it's highly probable that the judge would decide there is no case to answer. A bigger question might be on what basis did the prosecuting authorities decide to prosecute? If there is no direct evidence (i.e. no eye-witnesses, no forensic evidence and the alleged victim is dead) why did they pick the defendant to prosecute? Evidence of a propensity towards online sex-chatting (if it was admitted) is scarcely sufficient to support a charge of murder. It has shades of Christopher Jefferies:
https:/
OK, Mr Jefferies did not make it to court but the media and the police had him in the frame on a basis of no evidence whatsoever. It was hardly surprising there was no evidence as he had not committed the crime, but he was stood up purely on the basis that he had habits and a demeanour which some people viewed as a little strange.
From your description it's highly probable that the judge would decide there is no case to answer. A bigger question might be on what basis did the prosecuting authorities decide to prosecute? If there is no direct evidence (i.e. no eye-witnesses, no forensic evidence and the alleged victim is dead) why did they pick the defendant to prosecute? Evidence of a propensity towards online sex-chatting (if it was admitted) is scarcely sufficient to support a charge of murder. It has shades of Christopher Jefferies:
https:/
OK, Mr Jefferies did not make it to court but the media and the police had him in the frame on a basis of no evidence whatsoever. It was hardly surprising there was no evidence as he had not committed the crime, but he was stood up purely on the basis that he had habits and a demeanour which some people viewed as a little strange.
Chris Jeffries
o god he looked like a freak - triangular hair style
doesnt he proof correct the constable's report ( " different does NOT have an 'a' in it")
BUT unlike the randy one, Jeffries takes frenz' advice - hair cut and rts to dress relatively normally.
IN FACT he is arrested on suspicion ( anything more than fanciful) because he has said more to the hacks and journos waiting outside than he had to the Police - specifically - he heard "the garden gate swing" on the night of the death.
His detention ( coz I counted it) is three days. QC for three days attendance. God knows how much that cost. His frenz who looked after the image he projected, paid that.
His other humiliations - refusing to be served at a shop - were all Bristol habits.
Needless to say the whole of the south-west followed this in real time goggle-eyed. The tv prog is a drama - I am not sure if the slick London lawyer is afro-caribbean. His detention seems much longer than it was. I am not sure if the lawyer says after the third interview: "it is obvious my client has not done anything to the dead girl"
Good drama tho - plays to an audience' fears: Police get wrong end of the stick and dont let go ( confirmation bias)
o god he looked like a freak - triangular hair style
doesnt he proof correct the constable's report ( " different does NOT have an 'a' in it")
BUT unlike the randy one, Jeffries takes frenz' advice - hair cut and rts to dress relatively normally.
IN FACT he is arrested on suspicion ( anything more than fanciful) because he has said more to the hacks and journos waiting outside than he had to the Police - specifically - he heard "the garden gate swing" on the night of the death.
His detention ( coz I counted it) is three days. QC for three days attendance. God knows how much that cost. His frenz who looked after the image he projected, paid that.
His other humiliations - refusing to be served at a shop - were all Bristol habits.
Needless to say the whole of the south-west followed this in real time goggle-eyed. The tv prog is a drama - I am not sure if the slick London lawyer is afro-caribbean. His detention seems much longer than it was. I am not sure if the lawyer says after the third interview: "it is obvious my client has not done anything to the dead girl"
Good drama tho - plays to an audience' fears: Police get wrong end of the stick and dont let go ( confirmation bias)
Latest Posts
News3 mins ago
News6 mins ago
Can't Access My Hard Drive On File...
Technology23 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles24 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.