Music2 mins ago
MP found guilty of fiddling, but escapes an actual criminal charge?
I do not really understand this at all.
If she was declared unfit to face trial for psychiatric problems, why did they not postpone the trial until she was declared fit?
If there was no prospect of an improved psychiatric status, why is she not being treated in an institution?
And if a trial is convened, despite her absence, and if she is found guilty, as she was - why is it she manages to evade an actual criminal charge?
Could she enjoy a miraculous recovery over the next few months, and continue her life without serving a prison sentence or having a criminal conviction against her name?
I really am puzzled by this whole process; It does stink of privilege; one could hardly imagine joe bloggs down the street being able to employ this kind of defence.....
http://
If she was declared unfit to face trial for psychiatric problems, why did they not postpone the trial until she was declared fit?
If there was no prospect of an improved psychiatric status, why is she not being treated in an institution?
And if a trial is convened, despite her absence, and if she is found guilty, as she was - why is it she manages to evade an actual criminal charge?
Could she enjoy a miraculous recovery over the next few months, and continue her life without serving a prison sentence or having a criminal conviction against her name?
I really am puzzled by this whole process; It does stink of privilege; one could hardly imagine joe bloggs down the street being able to employ this kind of defence.....
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by LazyGun. 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.
Discussed elsewhere, but she was lucky, on any view. The judge had two immediate options. He could have granted an absolute discharge, which is the next thing up from an acquittal, or he could order a supervision order. Significantly, he could not have committed her to a hospital because there were not two doctors before him to give evidence in support of such an order. We do not know of any evidence, from any doctor, nor was there reason given or referred to in court, why she would be so ill, or so badly affected by the trial that she would be incapable of giving instructions to her counsel at some future date
she wasn't found guilty. The jury just seems to have been convened to rule on the facts; but she was unable to defend herself, so was not on trial.
I've no reason to suppose Joe Bloggs would be hauled into court if he'd been deemed unfit to stand trial.
It's an odd business all the same. I suggested on another thread that maybe it was felt it was more in the public interest to get the facts out there than it was to hang around forever on the off chance that she might some day be able to face trial and punishment.
What happens if she gets better Ernest Saunders-style I don't know. But we shouldn't be too ready to assume she will.
I've no reason to suppose Joe Bloggs would be hauled into court if he'd been deemed unfit to stand trial.
It's an odd business all the same. I suggested on another thread that maybe it was felt it was more in the public interest to get the facts out there than it was to hang around forever on the off chance that she might some day be able to face trial and punishment.
What happens if she gets better Ernest Saunders-style I don't know. But we shouldn't be too ready to assume she will.
@jno - I am still genuinely puzzled. I do not wish the law to become an instrument of malice, but at the same time this seems a really unusual circumstance and I still cannot help but feel that this is special treatment for a one-time MP.
I hear what you say regarding getting the facts into the public domain - but I would imagine that creates more dissatisfaction, if thats possible. For her one time constituents, I would imagine their nagging sense of justice denied would be even more acute.
I hate it when I do not understand stuff ;)
From the Guardian article I linked to, it says this ;
"Margaret Moran, former Labour MP for Luton South, received more than £53,000 in fraudulent expenses, a jury has found, despite her being mentally unfit to stand trial.
Though jurors at Southwark crown court in London were unable to return a guilty verdict, they unanimously ruled the 57-year-old former assistant whip committed 15 counts of false accounting and six counts of using a false instrument over claims for parliamentary expenses between 2004 and 2008"
So although they were not able to issue a guilty verdict, they did find her guilty, correct?
I hear what you say regarding getting the facts into the public domain - but I would imagine that creates more dissatisfaction, if thats possible. For her one time constituents, I would imagine their nagging sense of justice denied would be even more acute.
I hate it when I do not understand stuff ;)
From the Guardian article I linked to, it says this ;
"Margaret Moran, former Labour MP for Luton South, received more than £53,000 in fraudulent expenses, a jury has found, despite her being mentally unfit to stand trial.
Though jurors at Southwark crown court in London were unable to return a guilty verdict, they unanimously ruled the 57-year-old former assistant whip committed 15 counts of false accounting and six counts of using a false instrument over claims for parliamentary expenses between 2004 and 2008"
So although they were not able to issue a guilty verdict, they did find her guilty, correct?
Lazy, they were required to find whether or not she commited the acts constituting the offence,in effect to find her guilty. This is necessary in such cases because it's always possible that the evidence adduced before the jury will not, in their opinion, amount to proof. For example,it might be an assault charge but the evidence, contrary to the prosecution's expectation, might show that the alleged assault was, in the jury's opinion , a pure accident and not a proven assault at all.
they found she had comnmitted crimes, by the look of it. But she wasn't able to defend herself, so wasn't on trial herself; the facts rather than the person were tried.
What happens if she recovers her health? I don't know. Perhaps she could be hauled in for sentence. Perhaps she could say "Hang on, I have a defence but I was too sick to tell you about it, so I demand a retrial."
I hope I don't give the impression I understand any of this. Perhaps it's a bit like a coroner making findings of fact without hanging anyone?
What happens if she recovers her health? I don't know. Perhaps she could be hauled in for sentence. Perhaps she could say "Hang on, I have a defence but I was too sick to tell you about it, so I demand a retrial."
I hope I don't give the impression I understand any of this. Perhaps it's a bit like a coroner making findings of fact without hanging anyone?
I think once again that the law has been applied fairly, even though it does seem as though this odious woman has 'got off'.
As I understand it, the judge may apply a supervision order against her, and there is still a decision to be made about the handing back of the defrauded money.
Anyone is able to be deemed unfit to plead, and it is not something done lightly, so we should find a degree of sympathy in this instance - it doesn; sound to me as though she has 'got away' with very much at all.
Given the choice between £50+ grand and my mental health, I don't need to flip a coin!
As I understand it, the judge may apply a supervision order against her, and there is still a decision to be made about the handing back of the defrauded money.
Anyone is able to be deemed unfit to plead, and it is not something done lightly, so we should find a degree of sympathy in this instance - it doesn; sound to me as though she has 'got away' with very much at all.
Given the choice between £50+ grand and my mental health, I don't need to flip a coin!
No problem LazyGun!
I spend a lot of time on this section trying hard to hold up the end of the legal process, and the fact that it has to work for all, even the apparently undeserving, but believe me, I get as emotional as everyone else when I see the abuses it can involve.
I do try and maintain a detachment, because otherwise I simply get angry, which helps no-one at all, and disturbs the people I love, so I don't do it - outwardly at least.
We are a civilised society, and we must enjoy it - faults and all, because the alternative is a bullying summary execution type of state where the most self-righteous get to pull the triggers, and who wants to live there?
I spend a lot of time on this section trying hard to hold up the end of the legal process, and the fact that it has to work for all, even the apparently undeserving, but believe me, I get as emotional as everyone else when I see the abuses it can involve.
I do try and maintain a detachment, because otherwise I simply get angry, which helps no-one at all, and disturbs the people I love, so I don't do it - outwardly at least.
We are a civilised society, and we must enjoy it - faults and all, because the alternative is a bullying summary execution type of state where the most self-righteous get to pull the triggers, and who wants to live there?
Her case is at an end. It can't be revived. The fact that the judge could have given her an absolute discharge proves that; that is technically
a finding of guilt but also a finding that no penalty should be imposed, perhaps because being in court is seen as punishment enough.
If the judge wanted to allow the case to proceed at some later date he could have adjourned it to some fixed date , or sine die [sigh-knee dye; lawyers never did pronounce Latin as they were taught] Finally, if he thought the case should not be proceeded with but he should reserve the remote possibility that it could be revived he could order 'that the counts lie on the file, not to be proceeded with without the leave of the Court or the Court of Appeal' (an order normally made when the defendant has pleaded guilty to other counts and proceeding on the rest would be waste of time) The trouble is that he could not then order a hospital or supervision order pending the revival.
a finding of guilt but also a finding that no penalty should be imposed, perhaps because being in court is seen as punishment enough.
If the judge wanted to allow the case to proceed at some later date he could have adjourned it to some fixed date , or sine die [sigh-knee dye; lawyers never did pronounce Latin as they were taught] Finally, if he thought the case should not be proceeded with but he should reserve the remote possibility that it could be revived he could order 'that the counts lie on the file, not to be proceeded with without the leave of the Court or the Court of Appeal' (an order normally made when the defendant has pleaded guilty to other counts and proceeding on the rest would be waste of time) The trouble is that he could not then order a hospital or supervision order pending the revival.
youngmafbog - what exactly is nonsense?
Fred has kindly taken the trouble to explain the background benind the case, and the reasons for the conculsions reached.
If your sense of outrage is clouded by the perception that someone has 'got off', then you appear to have allowed your injured sense of justice to cloud the facts and the decision.
This is whay the law works the way it does - it takes not account of injured emotions, or desires for revenge based on skewed perceptions - its sails through all those distractions and delivers the same verdict for the same circumstance, and that is one of the finest cornerstones of our democracy.
It may not be perfect, but the alternative is too horrible to think about for very long.
Fred has kindly taken the trouble to explain the background benind the case, and the reasons for the conculsions reached.
If your sense of outrage is clouded by the perception that someone has 'got off', then you appear to have allowed your injured sense of justice to cloud the facts and the decision.
This is whay the law works the way it does - it takes not account of injured emotions, or desires for revenge based on skewed perceptions - its sails through all those distractions and delivers the same verdict for the same circumstance, and that is one of the finest cornerstones of our democracy.
It may not be perfect, but the alternative is too horrible to think about for very long.
@Fred Thanks for your last answer Fred - cleared up a lot of my puzzlement. Like others, I do have a sense of justice denied with this case, but at least I have a clearer understanding of why the situation developed as it did.
As others, possibly you, have said, it does appear she has been very lucky indeed.
As others, possibly you, have said, it does appear she has been very lucky indeed.
LazyGun - if you really believe that a dose of Clinical Depression deemed serious enough to prevent you from pleading a case in court constitutes 'luck', then you either have no concept of what Clinical Depresion is - or how impossible it is to fake - or you have no soul.
I like to think its the former.
I like to think its the former.
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.