Coronation Street Actor Cleared.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2339007/Andrew-Lancel-Former-Coronation-Street-actor-cleared-indecently-assaulting-boy.html

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?

[sandyRoe]

Could the judge be saying in a roundabout way that the accused was lucky with his jury?

[ludwig]

It seems strange doesn't it. It's like the judge saying 'He's cleared, but only on a technicality', a bit like the Scottish Not Proven verdict.

[EDDIE51]

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.

[Octavius]

Insufficient evidence to prove his age at the time of the sexual encounters, does not mean it didn't happen at that time.

[China Doll]

Yes. If the reason for being found 'not guilty' is that there's no evidence of abuse then that doesn't exclude a sexual relationship between them. That's how I read it anyway.

[EDDIE51]

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.

[woofgang]

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.

[missnemesis]

No it wasn't. The jury made their decision, seemingly without much hesitation, so that should be that. He totally undermined the verdict by adding his two bobs worth.

[ludwig]

// 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.

[ludwig]

'do IT'

[anotheoldgit]

sandyRoe

/// Could the judge be saying in a roundabout way that the accused was lucky with his jury? ///

That would of course be his own personal decision, isn't that why we have a jury, so as to come to a non bias majority decision?

[douglas9401]

Can't beat the unbiased, unelected, unaccountable judiciary.
Strange way to put in for early retirement though.

[FredPuli43]

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.

[Octavius]

I read it that the 'victim' came across as clearly disturbed from the experience, despite the passing years and that whilst a guilty verdict for the charge presented could not be proven with the evidence provided, that the victim had clearly suffered in some way at some time from this relationship.

[jake-the-peg]

That does sound an inapropriate comment from the Judge.

I wonder if he was intending to hint that he might be sucessful in a civil case for damages where the burden of proof is less

[bazwillrun]

Hes saying hes guilty but the lucky b'stard has got away with it

win some, lose some !

[Peter Pedant]

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

[sandyRoe]

I am mindful of the impartial summing up in the Archer case. "Who would you prefere to believe" asked the learned Judge, "this fragrant English rose who graces the court with her radiant presence, or a provincial harlot who commutes down to London to sully its streets with her squalid dealings?"

[Peter Pedant]

Yeah but I am also mindful that R v Archer is a famous perjury case where the defendant (a Certain Archer) has perjured himself in an affidavit.

Do you by any chance think or suspect that perjury has occurred ?

otherwise I erm wouldnt think of Archer at this time.

[FredPuli43]

"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