Why Wasnt This Left To The Jury?

[piggynose]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-57172900

[dannyk13]

!. They were exonerated in 1998.
2.The judge has ruled that there is no case to answer.

[New Judge]

Because it was a decision for the judge on a matter of law.

Juries only determine matters of fact. For example, do they believe the evidence of the prosecution or that of the defendant? This case was for perverting the course of justice by altering statements. A couple of lines from the BBC report explains it adequately:

"He said the statements had been prepared for the public inquiry chaired by Lord Taylor in 1990.

The judge said this was not a statutory inquiry and therefore not considered "a court of law", so it was not a "course of public justice" which could be perverted."

Judges have a duty to instruct the jury to acquit if there is no prospect that they could convict the defendant either because the evidence is insufficient or, as here, on a matter of law. That's clearly what happened, so that's what he did.

The worrying question is why CPS lawyers did not come to the same conclusion before they instigated proceedings.

[barry1010]

The judge said this (the enquiry for which the statements were made) was not a statutory inquiry and therefore not considered "a court of law", so it was not a "course of public justice" which could be perverted.

[TheChair]

It's explained in the article.

[brainiac]

The three had been on trial for more than four weeks. What was happening during that time, and why didn't the judge say right at the start that they had no case to answer, instead of waiting four weeks?!

[New Judge]

The unfortunate feature of media reports is that the reader or viewer only gets a potted version of events. There clearly were other issues to consider before the judge came to his conclusion. That's why I queried the decision of the CPS to prosecute. There are obviously matters which half a dozen lines on the BBC does not explain.

[THECORBYLOON]

Why was the trial allowed to proceed for more than four weeks before the Judge made this decision?

[Ellipsis]

This is a bit like the MP who is allowed to carry on being an MP despite being a sex pest at work. "A loophole".

It seems that you're allowed to doctor evidence to a public inquiry with impunity, since they are "not considered a court of law". Makes a bit of a mockery of public inquiries.

[New Judge]

"Before the jury was called into court, prosecutor Sarah Whitehouse QC said they would not seek leave to appeal the judge's decision."

So the judge's ruling must have been made on fairly solid ground.

"Sue Hemming, from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), said they were "right to bring this case and for a court to hear the evidence of what happened in the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster"."

The purpose of a trial (as far as the CPS is concerned) is to secure a conviction. They have a two-part test which must be passed before a prosecution can be authorised. If they wanted simply to publicise "what happened in the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster" a court of law was not the place to do so.

[andy-hughes]

Corby - // Why was the trial allowed to proceed for more than four weeks before the Judge made this decision? //

I think NJ has addressed this question in the post before yours.

[New Judge]

//It seems that you're allowed to doctor evidence to a public inquiry with impunity, since they are "not considered a court of law". Makes a bit of a mockery of public inquiries.//

The clue to the offence is in the name: "Perverting the Course of Justice." Public enquiries do not seek to impose justice. They set out to find out what happened. Nobody faces punishment as a result of the findings of a public enquiry. In this particular case the statements were intended for a public inquiry into safety at sports grounds. Nobody was on trial; nobody faced justice.

It seems there were six charges against three defendants and much of the trial was heard with the jury absent, arguing the points of law involved. PCOJ is a "common law" offence and there is no statute. It relies on precedent and case law. If you've ever followed proceedings such as this you will understand that it takes no effort for m'Learned Friends to take four weeks to argue a case that can be condensed into two or three lines.

[THECORBYLOON]

ANDY, I know what NJ has stated but my question is why has it taken four weeks for the trial Judge to realize there is no case to answer?

The status of the original inquiry has not changed during the previous four weeks, has it?

I appreciate the Defence should also have been aware of this but is it unreasonable to expect a judge not to be aware already?

[andy-hughes]

Corby - // ANDY, I know what NJ has stated but my question is why has it taken four weeks for the trial Judge to realize there is no case to answer? //

I don;t know - only the judge knows, obviously.

i can speculate though - there must be legal process to be followed, which takes time, and that is why there was the delay in his ruling.

I doubt the judge sat there doing Sudkus for a couple of weeks and then rocked up with an answer - but as I say, I am speculating because I don't know.

[New Judge]

On a wider note, I think this should mark the end of legal proceedings in the Hillsborough matter. They've had two attempts to convict the match commander, Supt. David Duckenfield of manslaughter which both failed. In fact in total there have been, over the last three decades, four trials, two sets of inquests, a public inquiry and several other investigations and reviews. The only success from all of that was the conviction of Sheffield Wednesday's former club secretary Graham Mackrell, who was found guilty of a health and safety offence in May 2019, relating to the provision of turnstiles.

The same evidence keeps being turned over again and again and different courts at different levels and in different places have all failed to produce convictions on serious criminal charges. The Hillsborough disaster was a tragedy on an epic scale. But sometimes stuff happens without individuals being criminally responsible. My view is that the 2016 inquest verdict which found unlawful killing was incorrect and since then (and for a good time before it) a narrative has been pursued which aimed to fit the evidence to that verdict instead of to the crimes alleged. Time to draw a line, I think.

[Ellipsis]

New Judge, my point is orthogonal to yours.

[Peter Pedant]

// On a wider note, I think this should mark the end of legal proceedings in the Hillsborough matter. //

well there is british justice ffor you - 98 dead and no one is to blame
sozza
98 avoidably dead and no one is to blame

Lord Peter Taylor - one of greatest judges
you remember what he answered when asked if he regretted sentencing innocent irish men to 20 y in the slammer for bomb stuff they never did?

if the police choose to lie to me there is nothing i can do

this has resurfaced as an all time winner in- - - post office fraud cases
If the computer says no when it should say yes - we can do nothing to stop people ( mostly indians) being put away and their lives ruined

I love British Justice - we should have more - much more

[Peter Pedant]

// I don;t know - only the judge knows, obviously.//

foo I love the AB standard nichty nochty no I have no idea but I will respond anyway answers.

The case took 4 weeks to state. The judgie baby says is that all? He doesnt really take the papers into his study and emerge and say - "crap let em out" (*) - it is not his decision to prosecute or not

Arent they called half way house proceedings - leading case nelson - there are of course rules about jumping up at the half way point and saying - my client has nothing to defend

NJ will know ( he did this for long enough)

(*) good old days 1980 - my co worker was remanded in custody for 60d and then the GBH case came to court - - - wow instant justice! The judge asked - is the defence that he took the knife off the victim and stabbed him with it ?
and the flunkey bowed and scraped and insisted he wouldnt resile from such a position ( = yes to you and me)
and the judge said that if no evidence was offered to the contrary (there wasnt) then he wd have to acquit - er direct the jury to acquit. I cant remember if that was the first three minutes

[ToraToraTora]

judge: "On a wider note, I think this should mark the end of legal proceedings in the Hillsborough matter." - it won't, they want to drag someone through the streets, Scorge them and then crucify them so they don't have to acknowledge the true cause of the tragedy, which is obvious to to a blind man.

[Peter Pedant]

// It seems that you're allowed to doctor evidence to a public inquiry with impunity//
yeah case in 2000 where they pointed out the witness statements had been cut so severly they now er werent really witness statements

and the judge said so what?
no sozza - so what dont they always do that

a sentence - "I was standing at the spot and the police were wandering around vacantly looking as tho they had no idea what they should do."
was modified to
I was standing at the spot

coz the rest was subjective see?

and I asked - isnt "I was standing there" - - also subjective?

and everyone laughed and said - oh ho ! that's a bit subtle !!!!
and early foo-er said " foo what he mean by dat den?"

and the judge said - Great that is OK by me - blimey think of the saving on reading time! righto!

[Peter Pedant]

and since that case was 2000
I did wonder what they were doing in 2021