A Very English Scandal.....again..

[ToraToraTora]

the defence did not put thorpe on the stand, fair enough but why was he not called by the prosecution?

[douglas9401]

He had the right to remain silent.

[Eleena]

This possibly?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43631718

[ToraToraTora]

yes eleena that explains why he was not called by the defence but he could have been called by the prosecution as a hostile witness why did they chose not to?

[Eleena]

Not sure, it did say in that link though that the three key prosecution witnesses all faced significant doubts over their credibility, and they failed to convince the jury.

[Buenchico]

Under English law a defendant has always had the right to remain silent (and therefore to refuse to take the stand in a court of law). Since 1953 that right has been reinforced by the European Convention of Human Rights.

At the time of the Thorpe trial the judge was obliged to tell the jury that they must NOT draw any adverse inference from the defendant's decision to remain silent. (Since the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 came into effect a judge may now allow a jury to draw an adverse inference from such a decision, if they so decide, but only under specific circumstances prescribed by law; there are six criteria which must be met before a judge can allow a jury to draw an adverse inference from a defendant remaining silent).

[Eleena]

Best answer to Bueny :0)

[ichkeria]

It was a hell of a summing up by the judge. Hard to believe it happened but it did ..

[jno]

douglas's answer seems to be the obvious one. A defendant can't be forced to give evidence by anyone.

[ToraToraTora]

ok cheers chico

[New Judge]

Yes just to add to 'Chico's excellent answer, the prosecution cannot "call" a hostile witness. They can only call witnesses whom they intend to rely on to prove their case. Only if they "turn" whilst giving their evidence can the prosecution ask the court to declare them hostile and so be liable to cross-examination.

[sandyRoe]

The judge's summing up in this drama, a bit of poetic licence, surely?

[DTCwordfan]

he had them where he wanted them.......

[Peter Pedant]

under common law the defendant was NOT allowed to take the stand
and the feeling grew that he may have evidence which would illuminate the case ( ie prove his innocence )
AGAINST the face Mr Average Defendant would be mincemeat for any lawyer

result was the Criminal Evidence Act 1898

and so you can see reader that it is IRONIC that adverse inferences can now be drawn from his silence .....

doesnt anyone remember the case ?
Carman made mincemeat of the variable deal Bessell made (half the fee if Thorpe were acquitted)
At the time alot thought it was unlawful to strike such a deal

Normal Scott came over as a witness as a petulant lying devious greedy aging rent boy

Newton (Andrew Gino Newton) the one who shot Rinka gave evidence that he had no intention of shooting scott ("he sat there like a pudding/sausage - I expected him to get out and run away")

There wasnt any evidence of the attack besides men's blah and other men's blah blah blah .....

[Peter Pedant]

oh and a dead dog
which isnt convincing evidence of a conspiracy to kill

[hc4361]

sandyRoe, the judge's summing up in the drama was an accurate account of the reality, which is the biggest scandal of the whole affair in my opinion

[Islay]

There is a very good documentry on iplayer BBC4 that was on on Sunday night, filmed by the BBC when the trial was on then buried by the director general when Thorpe was found not guilty - worth watching if your interested.

[Peter Pedant]

sandyRoe, the judge's summing up in the drama was an accurate account of the reality,

in the good old days a judge could virtually instruct a jury to acquit - he cant now direct a verdict

It depends what happens at the time of oral evidence
which may not be represented in a drayma 50 y later

I was disbelieved in the witness box in a case
and came over as shifty eyed and devious and clearly not to be believed, my views were preposterous

The only thing was I was able to show that perjury had been committed connived at by one of the defence staff.
Did anyone care ? Nope - - Next Case !