The Commander

[jjpb]

In last night's Commander, it was claimed that a not guilty verdict was submitted by a defendant at the Royal Courts of Justice. Am I right in thinking that not guitly verdicts are irrelavent at the RCJ as this is for appeals and liables?

[JudgeJ]

To begin with, the terminology seems to be completely wrong.

I assume from the fact that the line came from “The Commander” that it was a criminal matter.  In criminal cases defendants do not submit verdicts, they enter pleas (Guilty or Not Guilty) when charges are put to them. Juries (or, in cases being tried in magistrates’ courts, magistrates) return verdicts after having heard the evidence.

The Royal Courts of Justice is the name of a building in London. The building accommodates the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Both of these courts act as routes of appeal in both criminal and civil matters. Cases listed for appeal would have been originally heard in the Crown Court (criminal) or the County Court (civil). In cases such as these the judge(s) would “allow” or “dismiss” the appeal.

The High Court also hears, in their first instance, serious civil cases. These can include libel, slander and defamation, family matters as well as commercial matters such as breach of contract. Although they can sometimes be heard by juries, most Civil cases are heard by a judge or judges only and they “find for” either the plaintiff (the party bringing the case to court) or the defendant (the party being brought to court by the plaintiff).

So it is most unlikely that the term ”not guilty” would be heard at the Royal Courts of Justice.