Labour MP charged with Perverting Course of Justice

Sometimes the evidence is slim but it’s felt that it should be presented to a jury. What you don’t always see is the excluded evidence that CPS want to present but for a whole host of reasons The Judge decides to stop.
I.e it isn't relevant, isn't probative, is contradictory to other elements of the prosecution case or it would be prejudicial to a fair trial to allow it...

How would that help?
 
We’ve all seen press reports of the evidence they’ve presented, which on the face of it seems clear, but there may be something we aren’t aware of.
FOC

As we weren't there we have no idea what really happened in the courtroom. (See my previous post regarding witnessing a trial and then reading about it in the paper).
 
Just because nine of the jury were 'windrush' some will think it unfair! I shall bring this up on Question Time, if I am ever again invited?
If the jury was selected at random in London, statistically at least 6 will be ethnic. A jury from where the alleged incident took place would probably have 144 toes between them.
 
I.e it isn't relevant, isn't probative, is contradictory to other elements of the prosecution case or it would be prejudicial to a fair trial to allow it...

How would that help?
In the opinion of the Solicitor/Barrister that lobbies The Judge on the defendants behalf.
 
This starts with no inference being drawn from a no comment interview which allows defendants months to concoct a story that police have no time to check and answer back to.

By all means go no comment but be prepared to explain why you suddenly have a very detailed story that you felt unable to tell the police at the interview stage.
You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence

Does that mean inferences may be drawn by "no comment"? Or at least there's a framework whereby Babylon can go back and requestion if the story miraculously gets remembered?
 
You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence

Does that mean inferences may be drawn by "no comment"? Or at least there's a framework whereby Babylon can go back and requestion if the story miraculously gets remembered?
Police can’t question anyone at court, that is done by a CPS Solicitor/Barrister. An inference can be drawn at court, but it doesn’t seem to be rigorously enforced and frankly feeble excuses are accepted.

If a defence is raised at the interview stage, police can try to confirm or deny it, which seems fair to me. A no comment interview is neither a denial or an admission, leaving police guessing until Magistrates Court or when and if the defence produce a defence statement prior to Crown Court outlining their defence at which stage it could be months or even years after the offence.
 
Police can’t question anyone at court, that is done by a CPS Solicitor/Barrister. An inference can be drawn at court, but it doesn’t seem to be rigorously enforced and frankly feeble excuses are accepted.

If a defence is raised at the interview stage, police can try to confirm or deny it, which seems fair to me. A no comment interview is neither a denial or an admission, leaving police guessing until Magistrates Court or when and if the defence produce a defence statement prior to Crown Court outlining their defence at which stage it could be months or even years after the offence.
I think the thing that has taken the pop out of inference being drawn from a no reply interview is the 'prepared statement' (followed by the no reply interview). The brief can then hop up and say, "well, my client did actually give a full account of what happened".
 
In the opinion of the Solicitor/Barrister that lobbies The Judge on the defendants behalf.
Which can only be done after proper disclosure which is currently problematic and may very well be the result of issues such as :

" In one of the few studies into this area, Maxwell McLean, an inspector with West Yorkshire police, compared tape recordings of 16 police witness interviews with the subsequent written statements. He found the number of items omitted from the written account of the interview ranged from four to 38, with the average being 14. On four occasions, the officer wrote down a "fact" that contradicted what the witness had actually said. All the statements had been signed as a true record. "
 
Must be political interest? last thing old wisker's wants at this point in political time is a by-election in a key marginal seat under these circumstances?
Then why didn't she just take the 3 points?

And for balance,I don't think the stick insect May wants a by-election either, because given current performance it probably wouldn't be slam-dunk for her party either
 
Last edited:
Then why didn't she just take the 3 points?

And for balance,I don't think the stick insect May wants a by-election either, because given current performance it probably wouldn't be slam-dunk for her party either
Why did she not take the 3 points ? would have saved herself a lot of grief and a nice bill from her brief!
 
I’ve never seen a reformed mong. Is it that disease.
Or, to give it its proper name, ‘Anything Other Than White Male Straight Privilege Syndrome’.
 

Similar threads


New Posts

Latest Threads

Top