ChatterBank1 min ago
A Very English Scandal.....again..
17 Answers
the defence did not put thorpe on the stand, fair enough but why was he not called by the prosecution?
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
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.
This possibly?
http://
http://
Under English law a defendant has always had the right to remain silent (and therefore to refuse to take the stand in a court of law). Since 1953 that right has been reinforced by the European Convention of Human Rights.
At the time of the Thorpe trial the judge was obliged to tell the jury that they must NOT draw any adverse inference from the defendant's decision to remain silent. (Since the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 came into effect a judge may now allow a jury to draw an adverse inference from such a decision, if they so decide, but only under specific circumstances prescribed by law; there are six criteria which must be met before a judge can allow a jury to draw an adverse inference from a defendant remaining silent).
At the time of the Thorpe trial the judge was obliged to tell the jury that they must NOT draw any adverse inference from the defendant's decision to remain silent. (Since the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 came into effect a judge may now allow a jury to draw an adverse inference from such a decision, if they so decide, but only under specific circumstances prescribed by law; there are six criteria which must be met before a judge can allow a jury to draw an adverse inference from a defendant remaining silent).
Yes just to add to 'Chico's excellent answer, the prosecution cannot "call" a hostile witness. They can only call witnesses whom they intend to rely on to prove their case. Only if they "turn" whilst giving their evidence can the prosecution ask the court to declare them hostile and so be liable to cross-examination.
under common law the defendant was NOT allowed to take the stand
and the feeling grew that he may have evidence which would illuminate the case ( ie prove his innocence )
AGAINST the face Mr Average Defendant would be mincemeat for any lawyer
result was the Criminal Evidence Act 1898
and so you can see reader that it is IRONIC that adverse inferences can now be drawn from his silence .....
doesnt anyone remember the case ?
Carman made mincemeat of the variable deal Bessell made (half the fee if Thorpe were acquitted)
At the time alot thought it was unlawful to strike such a deal
Normal Scott came over as a witness as a petulant lying devious greedy aging rent boy
Newton (Andrew Gino Newton) the one who shot Rinka gave evidence that he had no intention of shooting scott ("he sat there like a pudding/sausage - I expected him to get out and run away")
There wasnt any evidence of the attack besides men's blah and other men's blah blah blah .....
and the feeling grew that he may have evidence which would illuminate the case ( ie prove his innocence )
AGAINST the face Mr Average Defendant would be mincemeat for any lawyer
result was the Criminal Evidence Act 1898
and so you can see reader that it is IRONIC that adverse inferences can now be drawn from his silence .....
doesnt anyone remember the case ?
Carman made mincemeat of the variable deal Bessell made (half the fee if Thorpe were acquitted)
At the time alot thought it was unlawful to strike such a deal
Normal Scott came over as a witness as a petulant lying devious greedy aging rent boy
Newton (Andrew Gino Newton) the one who shot Rinka gave evidence that he had no intention of shooting scott ("he sat there like a pudding/sausage - I expected him to get out and run away")
There wasnt any evidence of the attack besides men's blah and other men's blah blah blah .....
sandyRoe, the judge's summing up in the drama was an accurate account of the reality, which is the biggest scandal of the whole affair in my opinion
sandyRoe, the judge's summing up in the drama was an accurate account of the reality,
in the good old days a judge could virtually instruct a jury to acquit - he cant now direct a verdict
It depends what happens at the time of oral evidence
which may not be represented in a drayma 50 y later
I was disbelieved in the witness box in a case
and came over as shifty eyed and devious and clearly not to be believed, my views were preposterous
The only thing was I was able to show that perjury had been committed connived at by one of the defence staff.
Did anyone care ? Nope - - Next Case !
in the good old days a judge could virtually instruct a jury to acquit - he cant now direct a verdict
It depends what happens at the time of oral evidence
which may not be represented in a drayma 50 y later
I was disbelieved in the witness box in a case
and came over as shifty eyed and devious and clearly not to be believed, my views were preposterous
The only thing was I was able to show that perjury had been committed connived at by one of the defence staff.
Did anyone care ? Nope - - Next Case !
1 to 17 of 17
