Robbery victim too honest ... so judge halts trial

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Circus_Pony, Jan 13, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. WTF!!!

    I am seldom lost for words .... but this time?

    Despite appearances I do like to hear both sides of arguments but in this case I cannot see what possible excuse their can be for M'Lud's barking pronouncement. Can anyone explain before I feel the need to hit the scotch?
     
  2. A spokesman for Victim Support said: "Witnesses and victims expect the court to look after them and it can be a devastating experience, as I'm sure it is in this case, when someone is cleared on a technicality."

    Why was this case thrown out on a technicality? Is an eye witness now classed as a technicality?
     
  3. How bizarre.

    No doubt new government legislation will introduce a 'standard' that victims should meet? Ie; have a criminal conviction or at least a couple of ASBOs before you can go to court.

    I was under the illusion that the criminal justice system was designed to prove a defendant and not a victim? A criminal chooses his trade, a victim does not choose to be a victim.
     
  4. Good I'm glad to hear that there is a legitimate secondary career availble of robbing, honest hard working citizens and getting away with it.

    Excuse me while I run head first into a wall screaming
     
  5. Hang on - if this woman was in the witness box, wouldn't she have been under oath? If so and she doesn't tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, wouldn't she be perjuring herself? Is that what the Judge would have preferred rather than coming across as "too believeable". Maybe she was "too believeable" simply because she was telling the truth!

    I really am lost for words. How can the judge possibly know what 12 good men and true are thinking?

    Another great advert for justice in this land.
     
  6. The judge says;
    Why would he not have allowed the case? Surely everyone; defendant and victim included is allowed a fair trail based on evidence? I didn't realise court cases are now some sort of X Factor based on personality, credibility or what position in society someone holds.

    Would it be fair to say that the beak is using his 'powers' to relieve the over burdened prisons by knocking the case on the head knowing that the previously convicted offender would have a custodial sentence? If so, that is not justice but an entire legal system swayed by shite admin.
     
  7. Surely this is the kind of thing that is raised in summing up? How on earth do such fools get to be in positions of authority? Who selects them? Surely now he should be asked to resign and the case heard again.
     
  8. The only personw ho should be kicked in the teeth is the fcuking Judge.

    This pr1ck embodies the actual reason this country is overun by Asbokids and Chavs.

    He should be sacked, and made to live on a sink estate.

    Fcuking moron.

    Judge Jamie Tabor, QC, will I assume be chuffed to bits when the creature he let go, robs again. Perhaps severly injures someone or maybe kills.

    Meanwhile a descent woman is almost too scared to drive, perhaps next time the victim will just knock several shades out of the theif? It would be entirely justified, and the fault laid at Tabors feet.

    And people wonder why I am not at ease with one of these QCs running our own justice system. They prove time and again to be drugs or mentally unsuited to their task. Do QCs get drugs tested?

    I suggest Tabor does, or he gets investigated for a link to the criminal he let walk.
     
  9. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    I'd be boarding the outrage bus but I'm too apathetic to care. Welcome to ZaNU Labour's cool Britania
     
  10. Absolutely gobsmacked. What hope do law abiding citizens actually have if criminals get off on such bizarre reasons.
     
  11. None whatsoever it seems if your up before that judge Plant.

    The way things look these days is that the more you put into the system, the less you get out.

    Awarding the victim £250 for bravery is an insult in itself ( although she did deserve it ) It didn't get her her goods back and she will probably have to pay out around 4 times that amount to replace them, or pay that amount in excess if she claims off her insurance.

    The legal system these days is a joke alongside most of the judges. How can someone be too honest for gods sake?

    Scum like her attackers are laughing at the legal system, and with idiot judges like that presiding over cases, who can blame them?

    Get up on a morning, go to work and pay your way through life, be rewarded with a kick in the teeth.

    Get up on an afternoon, go on the rob and be rewarded with a pat on the back :x
     
  12. If the Daily Mail is to be believed (I shall hang myself for such a comment), it appears that this Judge has made a previous decision from the far far left Nu Arbeit red book before:
    The world gone mad

    3rd in line against the wall after Boon nd Bliar?
     
  13. You think this is bad - at least Blondie has a set of balls. This kid didn't

    "A man who tried to kidnap a young boy from a Plymouth car park has been jailed for four-and-a-half years after a judge said he was convinced the man would have taken the boy away, dressed him in tights, taken pictures then sent him home."

    I'll give you a guess who the Judge was!

    BUT

    "DC Newton, the officer in charge of the case, said: "My colleagues and I are very pleased with the result. Both the police and the CPS have worked tirelessly in this case for the past 10 months to secure a conviction; this included cross-border inquiries"

    http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/Guilty-trying-abduct-boy-8/article-295053-detail/article.html

    WTF is the Rozzer on about?