Interesting court martial on the horizon, General in the dock.

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
An accused enters a court as innocent (presumption of innocence), throughout the trial they remain innocent and it is the job of the prosecution to overturn this by proving guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. If prosecution do not prove guilt then the judgement of the court is Not Guilty, thus maintaining the innocence of the defendant and removing any allegation from them.
Could always go down the Scottish route and produce a verdict of "Not Proven".
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
You think all criminal cases should be anonymous?
Are you going to keep asking the same question or would you like to make a point.
 
Are you going to keep asking the same question or would you like to make a point.

I would like to understand if you thought I was only referring to sexual offence cases or all criminal, or indeed criminal and civil cases.
The follow on point being to ask why you think all criminal cases should be anonymous. It seems an anathema to the justice system.
 
Could always go down the Scottish route and produce a verdict of "Not Proven".

The Not Proven verdict is an abomination that brings closure to neither the victim or the accused.

A consultation was started on scrapping it - Guess who was up in arms ?

The body representing Scotland’s most senior lawyers has hit out at plans to scrap the not proven verdict.

The Faculty of Advocates warned that any attempt to remove the verdict could undermine the provision of “fair and equitable justice”.


There is nothing fair or equitable about the Not Proven verdict.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
I didn’t say anything of the sort.
Maybe so, but the intent seemed clear!

Now we are just going round in circles here on a subject which was about naming people accused in sex cases while giving total anonymity to the accuser - even if they are found to be somewhat economical with the truth. If there is more discussion, perhaps starting a Court thread for this and other procedural matters.
 
Now we are just going round in circles here on a subject which was about naming people accused in sex cases while giving total anonymity to the accuser - even if they are found to be somewhat economical with the truth.
People who make false allegations are usually charged and their names made public.
 
Will the MOD, though?
That's the question?
Was the complainant 'a woman scorned'?

Anyone found to have made a false allegation is usually charged why would the MOD be any different?

In the case the woman might have been sexually assaulted, it just couldnt be proven.
 

Alamo

LE
Maybe so, but the intent seemed clear!

Now we are just going round in circles here on a subject which was about naming people accused in sex cases while giving total anonymity to the accuser - even if they are found to be somewhat economical with the truth. If there is more discussion, perhaps starting a Court thread for this and other procedural matters.
Not at all, and if that was your inference it's perhaps a good job you don't practise law.
 
It is pretty rare though, if it were the case every Not Guilty verdict would result in the complainant being charged.
No it wouldn't, there is a difference between a false allegation and someone who has committed a crime but hasn't been found guilty.
I was a witness for a sexually assault case the nonce had 4 charges against him, he was found guilty on two, he wasn't innocent of the other two, its just the CM couldnt prove beyond all reasonable doubt that he was guilty.
 
Yes , but in law the allegation has not been proven so the logic follows the allegation was false.
No it doesn't and never has, 1% doubt is enough for a not guilty verdict.
 

Latest Threads

Top