Coronation Street Actor Cleared.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2339007/Andrew-Lancel-Former-Coronation-Street-actor-cleared-indecently-assaulting-boy.html

Mr Lancel has been found not guilty, so was it right of the judge to add that the verdicts did not mean sexual encounters never took place?

[mikey4444]

I thought it was incredible that a Judge would actually say something like that. Mr Lancel has had his career ruined by this affair, for which he was found not guilty by a Jury that heard all the evidence.

Seems that we have a new law in this country.."innocent until proved guilty by a Jury, or when the Judge thinks that they might have got it wrong"

Surely this needs to be reported to the Bar Council ?

[anotheoldgit]

It seems the same when a Judge recommends that they find the accused guilt.

[mikey4444]

AOG...you have lost me here. A judge can halt a case but I have never heard of one where he can instruct a Jury to find someone guilty. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick with your last comment ?

[FredPuli43]

No judge recommends that the jury find the accused guilty, in terms, aog. The direction is always that the law is for the judge alone and binding on the jury, but the facts, what they make of the evidence, are solely for the jury, and any apparent judicial expression of opinion, whether express or implied, on the facts, is to be ignored unless the jury agree with it and find it helpful.

[craft1948]

I agree with mikey, I thought the judge's comments to be totally out of order.
The guy was found not guilty, but the judge's comments could follow him around and impact on his career.

[FredPuli43]

mikey, yes, nowadays (since the case of R v Wang reported in 2005) there are no circumstances in which the judge can direct the jury to convict, though you may feel that's a bit of legal nicety because, if a defendant changes his plea to guilty during the trial, the judge will have the nearest juror act as foreman, tell the jury that the defendant has pleaded guilty before them, that that is the most compelling evidence of guilt and invite the jury to return the appropriate verdict .

[Peter Pedant]

Hello boys and girls - me again
When someone like Cregan pleads guilty in the middle of a trial - does not the Judge instruct the jury to return a verdict of guilty ? It was reported like that in the Manc Evg news. Jury still out on the other charges so comment is limited.

Mikey - Bar Council - I a unaware that the Barristers were misbehaving in anyway so the Bar Council would be uninterested/even more uninterested

and Freddie the version I heard was:

Judge 1 What (sentence) would you give a man who allowed himself to be buggered ?
Judge 2 oh ten or fifteen bob I think


Pip pip! from PP

[mikey4444]

Interestingness Fred...I am not aware of the case. The scenario would appear to make sense, although I presume that defendants don't change their pleas after the case has started very often.

But in this particular incident the Judge would appear to be making an unwise remark, for which I hope the relevant authority would now investigate. Would we expect him to have made an opposite remark if this chap had been found guilty ?

[mikey4444]

Mr Pedant...you are well named. You have obviously got more knowledge than myself about the various organisations that are involved in regulating justice in Britain today. However the spirit and meaning of my post remains clear.

Please let me know if I have made any other slight grammatical errors.

[Peter Pedant]

Hi Mikey
Freddie gave a wunnderful account of plea change previously. I think possibly in the Cregan case ( careful - jury are still out)

I am unsure if the Judge can chuck in the towel (that is throw out the case at half time if the evidence is weak ) or that he has to have an application.


Remember that happened in this case - judge directed a not-guilty verdict in two charges earlier in the week.


Devlin the judge, shocked the world in his memoirs by saying he thought Dr Bodkin Adams 'had done it'. Wiki has quite a lot on this including Judge D throwing out one charge as an abuse of process which doesnt sound like thinking Dr B had 'done it', to me.

[FredPuli43]

It is not normal for the judge to withdraw the case from the jury without a submission being made by defence counsel. There is a fine example of apparent defence incompetence in R v Juett in 1988; there counsel made no submission of no case, the defendant was then called and it evidently became apparent to the jury during the defence case that he was guilty. On appeal against conviction it was urged that, had a submission of no case been made it would have been upheld and the defendant acquitted without his giving evidence. The Court of Appeal were not impressed by this impertinent suggestion! It was not the duty of the judge to stop the case if counsel did not apply.

However, in R v Brown in 1998 the Court of Appeal did say that the judge could stop the case of his own motion if it was clear that no jury could properly convict, but should indicate his intention to counsel, lest prosecuting counsel thought to argue against that. And there is a Privy Council (i.e. appeal from a Commonwealth country) case saying that the judge should act and stop the case, whether a submission is made or not

[EDDIE51]

PP's comment at 15.01 yesterday sums it up.
The plaintiff was saying the events took place when he was 15, there is pretty sustancial evidence that the events, if they did take place, happened when he was 16 so there was no case. That is why the judge said what he did .

[anotheoldgit]

mikey4444 & FredPuli43

http://www.guardian.co.uk/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-26646,00.html

[FredPuli43]

And, aog, the jury in the case of the Quakers Penn and Meade [your link] have got a memorial in the Old Bailey, to remind us all that the jury is paramount. As given above [17.49] and in the link, Wang put an end to the idea that the judge could decide the verdict, directing the jury to convict. However unlikely it is, the jury could refuse to convict a man who changed his plea to guilty before them. I have seen that happen, when George Brown, the celebrated Labour minister, was charged with drink -driving and changed his plea. It took the judge three goes to persuade the jury that,logically, their only course was to convict, which, with the confirming of defence counsel, they did, having cheerfully returned "Not guilty" when asked the first couple of times.