News0 min ago
Why Will It Take So Long To Try These Savages?
44 Answers
https:/
December? 4FS, surely it's an open and shut case??
December? 4FS, surely it's an open and shut case??
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. 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.
Because they entered not guilty pleas and asked for their case to be tried by a jury. After the defendants elected a crown court trial, the judge sent the case for a hearing at Bristol Crown Court on February 8.
https:/
https:/
Remand in custody is only used for very serious offences. Do you really think we should pay their bed & board for 9 months?
With a not guilty plea there are a number of stages to go through before the actual trial. CPS has to prepare its case, disclosure of evidence by both sides, pre-trial review etc.
With a not guilty plea there are a number of stages to go through before the actual trial. CPS has to prepare its case, disclosure of evidence by both sides, pre-trial review etc.
One thing I don’t understand is why these defendants have been allowed to elect trial by jury. Criminal damage where the value is under £5,000 is triable only summarily – i.e. only in the Magistrates’ Court. The value of the statue is said to be £3,750. However, no matter.
As far as bail goes, the Bail Act provides for a right to bail unless the court is satisfied that the defendant may:
Abscond (i.e. not turn up as required).
Interfere with the course of justice (particularly witnesses).
Commit further offences.
To be satisfied of one of the above the court must see evidence (e.g. previous examples of absconding or committing offences whilst on bail).
With one or two exception for very serious offences (mainly murder and manslaughter) the severity of the alleged offence is not an issue when deciding whether bail is appropriate. The court might find that the nature and seriousness of the offence means a lengthy custodial sentence might be imposed in the event of a conviction and this would lead to a greater likelihood of absconding, but that would be rare.
There is no such thing as an "open and shut case" Tora. M'Learned Friends will have told their clients that they are entitled to put the prosecution to proof. Since a custodial sentence is extremely unlikely and since the defendants are probably (on paper anyway) potless, they have little to lose.
As far as bail goes, the Bail Act provides for a right to bail unless the court is satisfied that the defendant may:
Abscond (i.e. not turn up as required).
Interfere with the course of justice (particularly witnesses).
Commit further offences.
To be satisfied of one of the above the court must see evidence (e.g. previous examples of absconding or committing offences whilst on bail).
With one or two exception for very serious offences (mainly murder and manslaughter) the severity of the alleged offence is not an issue when deciding whether bail is appropriate. The court might find that the nature and seriousness of the offence means a lengthy custodial sentence might be imposed in the event of a conviction and this would lead to a greater likelihood of absconding, but that would be rare.
There is no such thing as an "open and shut case" Tora. M'Learned Friends will have told their clients that they are entitled to put the prosecution to proof. Since a custodial sentence is extremely unlikely and since the defendants are probably (on paper anyway) potless, they have little to lose.
-- answer removed --
//seriously, there are better things to get angry about than £3500 of criminal damage split between 4 people//
I think it's a little more than that, bednobs. The accusation only addresses the damage. There is a wider principle to consider. In this country people do not rip down statues of people of whom they disapprove. Like it or not, this country does have a past which involves slavery and colonialism. It was not alone. But people should not set themselves up as arbiters of what we can remember and how we can remember it.
I think it's a little more than that, bednobs. The accusation only addresses the damage. There is a wider principle to consider. In this country people do not rip down statues of people of whom they disapprove. Like it or not, this country does have a past which involves slavery and colonialism. It was not alone. But people should not set themselves up as arbiters of what we can remember and how we can remember it.
Yes it is, bednobs, and I don't think the fact that the damage was done to public property and apparently for no legitimate reason will aggravate the matter to influence sentencing. I was just suggesting why people may be a little more concerned about it than they would be if it was simple "mindless" vandalism.
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.