Robbery victim too honest ... so judge halts trial


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?
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?
But he stopped the trial on the grounds that her good character would unfairly sway the jury against the defendant, a self-confessed burglar.
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.
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
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.
The judge says;
"The jury may lend more weight to her evidence than her facts allow.

"You cannot be sure she got it right... had this been the Archbishop of Canterbury's son, would I have allowed (the trial) to go on? The answer is no."
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.
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.
Mrs Dawson said she felt she had been "kicked in the teeth" by the ruling
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.


Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
I'd be boarding the outrage bus but I'm too apathetic to care. Welcome to ZaNU Labour's cool Britania
Absolutely gobsmacked. What hope do law abiding citizens actually have if criminals get off on such bizarre reasons.
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
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

Judge Tabor gave Yvonne Godwin, from Cheltenham, a 12-month suspended sentence after she admitted trying to poison her husband after he cheated on her.

She put rat poison in a cake baked for him but the judge said she should not be jailed because she was not a 'criminal in any shape or form'.
3rd in line against the wall after Boon nd Bliar?
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!


"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"

WTF is the Rozzer on about?
This just highlights the fact that the british legal system hasn;t actually been destroyed by the government (I'm a hardcore tory, by the way) but by the judges. They seem to regard the law as sacrosanct in its own right, rather than as a tool for the benefit of society. Furthermore, they seem to try and outdo each other in being clever with the case and the judgment. Unfortunately the system is farily well set up in the first place, so if they try to be clever then it benefits the criminals.
So, am I correct in thinking that if the witness, who was honest, brave and credible and provided a detailed account of events, instead seemed to be uncertain, fuzzy, with a bad memory, or even simply appeared to be untruthful ... then, and only then, would the judge have allowed her to testify?

Can someone help back to my universe, please, because I'm pretty sure I slipped into a parallel one at the weekend.
Now we can be certain that the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

There MUST be an end to this sort of nonsense, even if it means the public execution of the perpetrator - in this case a so-called 'judge' from the Cherry Bliar school of justice.

Surely, there is a route for this lady to appeal? If not, why not?

T. Bliar said: "Tough on crime, and, tough on the causes of crime". Apart from the lie that there were 'weapons of mass destruction' in Iraq, the above utterance must be one of his biggest untruths.

Incidentally, why is Bliar not in The Hague awaiting trial?

Similar threads

Latest Threads