Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Coronation Street Actor Cleared.
34 Answers
http://
Mr Lancel has been found not guilty, so was it right of the judge to add that the verdicts did not mean sexual encounters never took place?
Mr Lancel has been found not guilty, so was it right of the judge to add that the verdicts did not mean sexual encounters never took place?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
No he is saying that after such a time it is impossible to prove that it happened , but the jury verdict does not mean that it never happened, just that it is not possible to prove it.
I expect more of the cases to end the same way.Some of the charges go back over 40 years, I DO NOT condone what is alleged to have happened but I expect more cases will be impossible to prove and so will be ''not guilty''
Remember the jury are told they must be sure the offences happened before giving a guilty verdict.
I expect more of the cases to end the same way.Some of the charges go back over 40 years, I DO NOT condone what is alleged to have happened but I expect more cases will be impossible to prove and so will be ''not guilty''
Remember the jury are told they must be sure the offences happened before giving a guilty verdict.
The particular comments seem to be about the age at which the assaults were alleged to have taken place...maybe there wasn't sufficient evidence as to the actual date of the alleged assaults? If there accuser wasn't a child and is, in fact gay, then what might be assault at under 16, could be adjudged as consenting activity at over 16.
// ludwig, If you are on a jury and you are only 75%or 80% sure the incident happened you have to say 'not guilty' . It does not mean the incident never happened just that it is impossible to be fully sure it did. 75 or 80% sure is not enough. //
Yes, but after every not guilty verdict, the judge doesn't pipe up and say 'this doesn't mean he didn't do by the way' or words to that effect, which is what the question is about.
Yes, but after every not guilty verdict, the judge doesn't pipe up and say 'this doesn't mean he didn't do by the way' or words to that effect, which is what the question is about.
But he's not saying in a roundabout way that the defendant was guilty. What he's doing is saying that the defendant shouldn't go about claiming that he'd never done such acts, and the complainant shouldn't think the jury had found him a liar about the sexual acts. We allow judges to put their own interpretation on a jury verdict of guilty and we equally allow judges to give their own reading of an acquittal.
We dont get all the news.
Liverpool Evening something has a day by day account of oral testimony.
The 'victim' said it all occurred when he was 15 in 1994
and the defence convincingly showed that the actor was elsewhere in 1994 but had a hotel receipt for 1995 when the 'victim' was 16+
and if it was co-ercive, why was their last meeting 2003 ?
The jury was out for 29 mins.
so the judge was within his remit to say that sexual encounters might have taken place because that wasnt really the issue.
Did the judge award costs ? Unlikely in these cases which means that Lancel has a huge bill
Liverpool Evening something has a day by day account of oral testimony.
The 'victim' said it all occurred when he was 15 in 1994
and the defence convincingly showed that the actor was elsewhere in 1994 but had a hotel receipt for 1995 when the 'victim' was 16+
and if it was co-ercive, why was their last meeting 2003 ?
The jury was out for 29 mins.
so the judge was within his remit to say that sexual encounters might have taken place because that wasnt really the issue.
Did the judge award costs ? Unlikely in these cases which means that Lancel has a huge bill
"How was the Circuit? " "Good, but I missed a bugger at Exeter" The legendary interchange between two High Court judges, one of whom had been travelling the country on "Circuit".
The art of potting (summing up to get a conviction) still survives but is less practised than formerly, when some judges prided themselves on their skill at it.The best were very subtle. His Honour Judge "Soapy Joe" (from his ingratiating manner) Grieves was a master. He would tell the jury "Mr Smith, in his spirited defence of this defendant, in the finest traditions of the duty and skill of the English Bar, argued....." at which point you knew your client was doomed!
Summing up for an acquittal is also known but judges are more inclined to take a robust view and stop the case at half time, to direct an acquittal, or to tell the jury that they can themselves decide, without hearing more, that the defendant should be acquitted and to invite them to consider that possibility
The art of potting (summing up to get a conviction) still survives but is less practised than formerly, when some judges prided themselves on their skill at it.The best were very subtle. His Honour Judge "Soapy Joe" (from his ingratiating manner) Grieves was a master. He would tell the jury "Mr Smith, in his spirited defence of this defendant, in the finest traditions of the duty and skill of the English Bar, argued....." at which point you knew your client was doomed!
Summing up for an acquittal is also known but judges are more inclined to take a robust view and stop the case at half time, to direct an acquittal, or to tell the jury that they can themselves decide, without hearing more, that the defendant should be acquitted and to invite them to consider that possibility
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.