Is It Snowing In Your Neck Of The Woods?
ChatterBank1 min ago
Should Only Take A Couple Of Minutes
27 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ChillDoubt. 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.
I'm not sure how this trial has gone on for as long as it has. Although they pleaded not guilty, one of them explained in great detail how and why they murdered Rigby. As those two things contradicted each other, could not the Judge have stopped the trial and entered a plea of guilty on their behalf ?
Their defence was simple enough; They were "soldiers of allah", acting on the orders of allah, in a war with the west over the deaths of muslims, and this was retaliatory retribution as an act of war.
The judge pointed out in his summary that this did not constitute a legitimate defence under UK law, and he is correct. It was murder, and I am pretty confident that is what the jury will find, too.
The judge pointed out in his summary that this did not constitute a legitimate defence under UK law, and he is correct. It was murder, and I am pretty confident that is what the jury will find, too.
There is no doubt whatsoever that the jury will find them guilty. My point is that as soon as one of them admitted in court that he had killed Rigby, the Judge should have been able to stop the trial and sentence him with immediate effect, instead of putting Rigby's family hell and costing the tax payer £1000's. It seems a very strange justice system that allows a person who has admitted his guilt to please not guilty.
I understand sandy but one of these horrible men admitted in court that he had actually killed Rigby, quite early in the proceedings as I remember. He had a right to be heard in court, to use your words. But he used that opportunity to admit his guilt, thus changing his stance from his earlier submission of "not guilty" He can't have his cake and eat too !
Why could the Judge not be allowed to stop the trial and sentence him ?
If he had submitted an initial plea of guilty, that is what would have happened, as it did when Stuart Hall changed his please. By admitting in court that he DID kill Rigby, hasn't he done the same thing ?
Is Fred here today to explain the points of law ?
Why could the Judge not be allowed to stop the trial and sentence him ?
If he had submitted an initial plea of guilty, that is what would have happened, as it did when Stuart Hall changed his please. By admitting in court that he DID kill Rigby, hasn't he done the same thing ?
Is Fred here today to explain the points of law ?
@ Mikey The have not confessed to murder, or changed their plea to guilty. If they had, that would have brought the trial to a halt.
Instead, they admit to killing, but not murder, and their defence is that it was an act of war, so the trial goes on ,the evidence is heard, the various statements are made, the judge summarises, and the jury consider their verdict.
Of course it was murder- a vile, brutal and heinous act. But they are entitled under our legal system to make a case.
Instead, they admit to killing, but not murder, and their defence is that it was an act of war, so the trial goes on ,the evidence is heard, the various statements are made, the judge summarises, and the jury consider their verdict.
Of course it was murder- a vile, brutal and heinous act. But they are entitled under our legal system to make a case.
I suppose you are right LG. Its just that the evidence that was given in court was so brutal, that I would have preferred Rigby's family hadn't had to go through it. Not just the family...think about those 12 people on the Jury.
I was on a Jury a few years ago, where the circumstances of a death was explained in minute detail. We were also shown very graphic pictures. I took me a long time to recover from the event. Even now, every time I drive past the Court, I can remember those horrible details.
Still... that is our Justice system....not perfect but better than some places around the world.
I was on a Jury a few years ago, where the circumstances of a death was explained in minute detail. We were also shown very graphic pictures. I took me a long time to recover from the event. Even now, every time I drive past the Court, I can remember those horrible details.
Still... that is our Justice system....not perfect but better than some places around the world.
