I Wonder Why This Number Is Rising So...
Politics3 mins ago
Well That Was A Waste Of Time......
43 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. 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 did think a conviction was unlikely.
However, I always remember this from his past.
https:/
However, I always remember this from his past.
https:/
//Yes but presumably they didn't have any convincing evidence.//
If they didn't have any convincing evidence the CPS would not have prosecuted. They undertake a two-part test. The first part is they "...must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction." Note, not the certainty of a conviction, but a realistic prospect. They can assess evidence as realistic and credible, but they cannot assess how a jury will accept it.
The second part of their test does not concern us here.
If they didn't have any convincing evidence the CPS would not have prosecuted. They undertake a two-part test. The first part is they "...must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction." Note, not the certainty of a conviction, but a realistic prospect. They can assess evidence as realistic and credible, but they cannot assess how a jury will accept it.
The second part of their test does not concern us here.
> Any retrial will not take place until at least 5 June 2023, the judge said.
> Mr Giggs' head dropped when he heard how long it could take for the case to conclude.
I shouldn't think anybody's very happy about it. We need to do better than this. Perhaps the judge who has also sat through the entire proceedings could provide the verdict in such cases - or perhaps the judge's decision could be added (as three votes?) to the jurors' decisions to see if that produces a clear majority.
> Mr Giggs' head dropped when he heard how long it could take for the case to conclude.
I shouldn't think anybody's very happy about it. We need to do better than this. Perhaps the judge who has also sat through the entire proceedings could provide the verdict in such cases - or perhaps the judge's decision could be added (as three votes?) to the jurors' decisions to see if that produces a clear majority.
///perhaps the judge's decision could be added (as three votes?) to the jurors'///
So if the jury vote 7-5 for GUILTY the judge can then nullify that by adding his three votes to the NOT GUILTY. I'm with NJ on this one.
Having sat on a jury as Foreman, I know just how hard it can be to get a unanimous verdict.
So if the jury vote 7-5 for GUILTY the judge can then nullify that by adding his three votes to the NOT GUILTY. I'm with NJ on this one.
Having sat on a jury as Foreman, I know just how hard it can be to get a unanimous verdict.
AH: "I don't think due legal process is ever a waste of time. " - well it is when the CPS clearly haven't got the evidence to convince a jury but go ahead anyway. What's that all about? They just hope the jury will think the same as them. The CPS seem to be driven by factors other than adhering to the principle of going ahead when there is a realistic prospect of a conviction.
