Today I'm angry about.....

[bobo the clown]

Apparently, as there's no jury, the meeja ... and indeed the general public, have vastly more freedom to comment and surmise. That seems to be the South African way.

[jaffka]

good argument fella. You're a champion.

are you an expert on South African law?

I will edge my bets here and go with a NO!!!

[Montreal Wanderer]

Apparently, as there's no jury, the meeja ... and indeed the general public, have vastly more freedom to comment and surmise. That seems to be the South African way.

South Africa is a mixed jurisdiction combining Romano-Dutch civil law with English common law. I don't know (but will have to look it up) but I would guess that criminal law follows English common law which would imply innocent until guilty and the right to a jury trial or trial by judge at the defendant's choice.

[Montreal Wanderer]

good argument fella. You're a champion.

are you an expert on South African law?

I will edge my bets here and go with a NO!!!

I'd hedge them if I were you - makes you sound a tad more intelligent.

[jaffka]

good argument fella. You're a champion.

are you an expert on South African law?

I will edge my bets here and go with a NO!!!

I'd hedge them if I were you - makes you sound a tad more intelligent.

I will leave that to pedants like you

[Montreal Wanderer]

Apparently, as there's no jury, the meeja ... and indeed the general public, have vastly more freedom to comment and surmise. That seems to be the South African way.

South Africa is a mixed jurisdiction combining Romano-Dutch civil law with English common law. I don't know (but will have to look it up) but I would guess that criminal law follows English common law which would imply innocent until guilty and the right to a jury trial or trial by judge at the defendant's choice.

Okay, live and learn. South African criminal law is common law based but jury trials were abolished in 1969 because Apartheid would tend to let the guilty go free (as many assume happened in the O. J. Simpson case). So no jury for Oscar.

[Prufrock]

Apparently, as there's no jury, the meeja ... and indeed the general public, have vastly more freedom to comment and surmise. That seems to be the South African way.

South Africa is a mixed jurisdiction combining Romano-Dutch civil law with English common law. I don't know (but will have to look it up) but I would guess that criminal law follows English common law which would imply innocent until guilty and the right to a jury trial or trial by judge at the defendant's choice.

Is no trial by jury in SA.

Wiki says you're right on the rest. Would have thought the legal principles would be largely the same as in the UK (and Canada?), but no idea on the procedural stuff.

EDIT: As you've just said .

[jaffka]

Apparently, as there's no jury, the meeja ... and indeed the general public, have vastly more freedom to comment and surmise. That seems to be the South African way.

South Africa is a mixed jurisdiction combining Romano-Dutch civil law with English common law. I don't know (but will have to look it up) but I would guess that criminal law follows English common law which would imply innocent until guilty and the right to a jury trial or trial by judge at the defendant's choice.

Okay, live and learn. South African criminal law is common law based but jury trials were abolished in 1969 because Apartheid would tend to let the guilty go free (as many assume happened in the O. J. Simpson case). So no jury for Oscar.

[KeyserSoze]

good argument fella. You're a champion.

are you an expert on South African law?

I will edge my bets here and go with a NO!!!

Are you an expert on contempt of court?

[jaffka]

good argument fella. You're a champion.

are you an expert on South African law?

I will edge my bets here and go with a NO!!!

Are you an expert on contempt of court?

so that is a yes for me then

as for your question, lets see if the trail collapses on what I have put

[KeyserSoze]

Not really though eh.

But, you know, in the future, if you're commenting on stuff closer to home and feel the need to publish an uninformed opinion of someone's guilt or innocence online again, do bear it in mind.

[jaffka]

Not really though eh.

But, you know, in the future, if you're commenting on stuff closer to home and feel the need to publish an uninformed opinion of someone's guilt or innocence online again, do bear it in mind.

How much do you charge for your lessons?

Although before I make any payment I would like to know your qualifications.

You have already declined that once though

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

There is precedent for comments on forums like this forming the basis of defamation claims, but I think a throwaway post leading to a contempt of court charge, even in the same jurisdiction, is unlikely, to say the least.

[LeverEnd]

The extensive pre-trial proceedings were widely reported and I was surprised how much evidence was presented. Enough for me to say I'm pretty sure he lost his temper and shot her after a row. I wouldn't flip the switch on an electric chair based on that view, but I think it's quite harmless to air it on here.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Apparently, as there's no jury, the meeja ... and indeed the general public, have vastly more freedom to comment and surmise. That seems to be the South African way.

South Africa is a mixed jurisdiction combining Romano-Dutch civil law with English common law. I don't know (but will have to look it up) but I would guess that criminal law follows English common law which would imply innocent until guilty and the right to a jury trial or trial by judge at the defendant's choice.

Is no trial by jury in SA.

Wiki says you're right on the rest. Would have thought the legal principles would be largely the same as in the UK (and Canada?), but no idea on the procedural stuff.

EDIT: As you've just said .

The legal principles are the same for criminal law as with other common law jurisdictions - case law, precedent, etc. - except for trial by jury because of a special circumstance. There is a movement to bring back jury trials. In Canada the accused can elect trial by judge or jury. One of my lawyer friends tells me, as a generalization, jury trials are elected by the guilty and trial before judge by the wrongly accused. I guess that means judges get it right more often than juries.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Apparently, as there's no jury, the meeja ... and indeed the general public, have vastly more freedom to comment and surmise. That seems to be the South African way.

South Africa is a mixed jurisdiction combining Romano-Dutch civil law with English common law. I don't know (but will have to look it up) but I would guess that criminal law follows English common law which would imply innocent until guilty and the right to a jury trial or trial by judge at the defendant's choice.

Okay, live and learn. South African criminal law is common law based but jury trials were abolished in 1969 because Apartheid would tend to let the guilty go free (as many assume happened in the O. J. Simpson case). So no jury for Oscar.

I didn't state any facts from certain knowledge except that South Africa was a mixed jurisdiction. For the rest, what part of "I don't know (but will have to look it up)", "I would guess" and "which would imply" do you have difficulty following? South African criminal law is in fact common law and common law does imply the presumption of innocence and trial by jury. It implies it, but in the case of South Africa there is an exception. I did look it up (three minutes before Prufrock).

Given this, I assume you have posted a self-portrait.

[Prufrock]

Really ??

You haven't got anywhere near enough evidence to say that he did, or or that he didn't, murder her with any conviction or rationale, and I've got as much evidence as you

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Really ??

You haven't got anywhere near enough evidence to say that he did, or or that he didn't, murder her with any conviction or rationale, and I've got as much evidence as you

Explain to me how, when a strange person has climbed into a bathroom through a window and then inexplicably locked the door from the inside, despite the fact his entire reason for being there in the first place is to gain acces to the other side of the locked door, and has then made enough noise to wake up the person this stranger is trying not to wake up, how is it that Mr Pistorius managed to put four bullets through a solid locked non-see-through wooden door and managed to hit the target not once but three times out of four with the fourth hitting the tiles where that person's head would have been if that person hadn't have dropped to the floor by this stage as a result of the previous three devastating shots; how did he manage that if the person on the other side wasn't his girlfriend screaming in sheer terror of the madman with a gun, and thereby helping that shooter target where that mysterious 'burglar' was stood standing? (Diagrams of the bedroom and bathroom have been published and the bullet tracks are not a random search pattern but targeted all in a single line going A to B directly to where B was a body. Fecking impossible in the circumstances supposedly given by Mr Pistorius's legal team).

[Bruce Rioja]

Really ??

You haven't got anywhere near enough evidence to say that he did, or or that he didn't, murder her with any conviction or rationale, and I've got as much evidence as you

Really ??

As you said earlier, we're only about five witnesses in, yet already Stumpy O'Legs McNolegs (last place in the Market Harborough half marathon) has had his version of events shot to pieces. I look forward to telling you that I told you so.

[bobo the clown]

...... already Stumpy O'Legs McNolegs (last place in the Market Harborough half marathon) has had his version of events shot to pieces.