Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Max Clifford Latest
http:// www.bbc .co.uk/ news/uk -271311 12
Apparently the Judge has said that the Jury can now convict Max Clifford, when they are only partly sure he is guilty, instead of fully sure !
Apparently the Judge has said that the Jury can now convict Max Clifford, when they are only partly sure he is guilty, instead of fully sure !
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. 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.
-- answer removed --
I would not agree that British justice is a joke, scooping. I have made no secret of the fact that I believe some of the recent cases of “historic” sex abuse are very dubious and that at least one - that of Deputy Speaker Nigel Evans, MP - should never have been brought. However, whilst the actions of the CPS in that and other similar cases may be questionable justice prevailed and was by no means a joke.
Is there something special about Crown Courts in and around Liverpool, scooping? I ask because, overall, the conviction rate in Crown Courts in England and Wales is around 80%. The last full year for which I can find numbers is 2011 when the conviction rate was in fact 83%. You are suggesting that the rate is Liverpool is around 20% and I find it hard to believe that that area is so divergent from the average. Have you any figures?
Is there something special about Crown Courts in and around Liverpool, scooping? I ask because, overall, the conviction rate in Crown Courts in England and Wales is around 80%. The last full year for which I can find numbers is 2011 when the conviction rate was in fact 83%. You are suggesting that the rate is Liverpool is around 20% and I find it hard to believe that that area is so divergent from the average. Have you any figures?
Whilst the allegations themselves are no laughing matter and subject matter aside, one does wonder who (if anyone) is actually telling the truth, given the discrepancy involved:
http:// metro.c o.uk/20 14/03/1 8/laugh ing-jur y-leave s-the-c ourtroo m-in-st itches- at-talk -of-max -cliffo rds-man hood-46 44568/
http://
Re jury trials in Merseyside, obviously at crown court, where the defendant(s) pleaded not guilty I was informed that the conviction rate was approximately one in five. I was a court reporter for many years and know the business. If I am wrong then I was misinformed. Maybe New Judge is better placed to get an accurate figure. It would certainly be interesting to know the difference between the national average and what has happened in Merseyside.
-- answer removed --
As a little bit of further information of the approximately 20% of acquittals in the Crown Court less than 6% result from decisions by a jury. The remainder result from directions from the judge. In 2010 5.7% of jury defendants subject to jury trial were actually acquitted by the jury. In 2011 it was 5.8% and in 2012 it was 5.9%. Figures are in Table 7 of this CPS document:
http:// www.cps .gov.uk /public ations/ reports /2011/a nnex_b. html
Sorry, scooping, although I cannot readily find the figures for Liverpool alone, I simply do not believe that 80% of defendants in that city are acquitted by juries and your contention that “juries do not convict” does not stand up to basic scrutiny. Some research please before you blandly state that British justice is a joke.
http://
Sorry, scooping, although I cannot readily find the figures for Liverpool alone, I simply do not believe that 80% of defendants in that city are acquitted by juries and your contention that “juries do not convict” does not stand up to basic scrutiny. Some research please before you blandly state that British justice is a joke.
This is a standard procedure - otherwise you would have had to have acquit at this point
IN fact it is not partly sure
just a majority have to be sure beyond reasonable doubt
( the minoirty maintaining presumably reasonable doubts )
The double probability bit causes confusion
The test for bringing the case is a reasonable chance of being able to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
When the DPP was in a corner even SHE got her knickers twisted over this and started saying things like 'our test is much lower than a jury and that is why there are so many acquittals...'
instead of the truth about her dept wh was: " we are a complete shower and everyone knows it however I need a knighthood and a very large salary "
IN fact it is not partly sure
just a majority have to be sure beyond reasonable doubt
( the minoirty maintaining presumably reasonable doubts )
The double probability bit causes confusion
The test for bringing the case is a reasonable chance of being able to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
When the DPP was in a corner even SHE got her knickers twisted over this and started saying things like 'our test is much lower than a jury and that is why there are so many acquittals...'
instead of the truth about her dept wh was: " we are a complete shower and everyone knows it however I need a knighthood and a very large salary "
In response to the OP, 9 jury members must be convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that Clifford is guilty for him to be convicted.
One jury member was dismissed for failing to turn up several weeks in to the trial, the other was dismissed for knowing a witness.
It has to be fairer all round to allow a majority verdict than to start another trial months down the line.
One jury member was dismissed for failing to turn up several weeks in to the trial, the other was dismissed for knowing a witness.
It has to be fairer all round to allow a majority verdict than to start another trial months down the line.