General Chit Chat

[Prufrock]

He's definitely a scumbag, mind.

[Bijou Bob]

Really?? We'll have to disagree then if you feel its perfectly fine to act as he's been described to have done.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Really?? We'll have to disagree then if you feel its perfectly fine to act as he's been described to have done.

I would never suggest what he did was perfectly fine. He acted extremely badly and paid a fairly significant price for his stupidity. Hopefully he has learned something and matures a bit. I just didn't see condemning him forever as a rapist as a reasonable position.

[Bijou Bob]

I'm not condemning him forever as a rapist Monty. he will however always be associated with that word.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I'm not condemning him forever as a rapist Monty. he will however always be associated with that word.

Fair enough. I may have misinterpreted your meaning when you wrote he "will always have his name prefaced by the word 'Rapist' in my mind."

[Bijou Bob]

It's the first word that will come to my mind whenever he's mentioned. I could probably have phrased it better, that I'll grant you.

[Prufrock]

This is an excellent summary for non-lawyers (and which some actual lawyers might do with reading!): https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/ ... vans-case/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Edit: ahem...

[Nicko58]

This is an excellent summary for non-lawyers (and which some actual lawyers might do with reading!)

What, this thread?

I assume you mean this?

[Prufrock]

Blushes spared.

[Montreal Wanderer]

This is an excellent summary for non-lawyers (and which some actual lawyers might do with reading!): https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/ ... vans-case/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Edit: ahem...

It may be excellent, Pru, but his first point is that because Evans was found not guilty this doesn't mean he is innocent. It is merely that the jury did not find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. While this may be true it overlooks the presumption of innocence, a key component of English common law. If someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, then clearly they are innocent when found not guilty. Your lawyer may wish to introduce Scottish concepts like Not Proven but this is not the case in England and his argument belongs in the realm of philosophy and semantics, not law.

[Prufrock]

No it doesn't. He is saying it doesn't mean he was *found* innocent. It makes clear what the question answered by the jury was, no more and no less.

[Montreal Wanderer]

No it doesn't. He is saying it doesn't mean he was *found* innocent. It makes clear what the question answered by the jury was, no more and no less.

Yes, but my point is he doesn't have to be found innocent - he is innocent (legally) when found not guilty. Certainly guilty people do get off but we have to consider them innocent. Nor can we suggest that all people tried are almost certainly guilty even if they escape through a clever lawyer.

[Prufrock]

Well yes, I agree, but there's nothing in that piece to suggest otherwise.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Well yes, I agree, but there's nothing in that piece to suggest otherwise.

Okay, though it seems to he is implying to us non-legal types that Evans could be guilty despite the verdict. The author said the prosecution has no right of appeal. Is this correct? I thought the Crown could appeal verdicts on various grounds.

[Hoboh]

No it doesn't. He is saying it doesn't mean he was *found* innocent. It makes clear what the question answered by the jury was, no more and no less.

You don't get 'found innocent' at any time, you are either 'found' guilty or not guilty.

Actually the most disturbing thing about the law is the growing number of 'secret' trials.

[Worthy4England]

Presumed innocent isn't the same as innocent. Nobody has tested/judged whether he's innocent, they tested whether they thought he was guilty based on the evidence provided and found not.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Presumed innocent isn't the same as innocent. Nobody has tested/judged whether he's innocent, they tested whether they thought he was guilty based on the evidence provided and found not.

You are presumed innocent before the trial - if found not guilty after the trial the presumption becomes, so to speak, an assumption.

[Bruce Rioja]

Let me get this right.

The Jury are asked, as far as I know, do you find the accused to be;

A: Guilty?

B: Not Guilty

Has our judicial system slipped some 'presumed' business in somewhere?

[Montreal Wanderer]

Let me get this right.

The Jury are asked, as far as I know, do you find the accused to be;

A: Guilty?

B: Not Guilty

Has our judicial system slipped some 'presumed' business in somewhere?

The presumption of innocence has been part of common law for centuries, and can be found in Justinian's code. It is quite an important concept as well as an ancient one. The presumption is before the jury renders a verdict. Put another way, we say "Innocent until proven guilty".

[Bruce Rioja]

Let me get this right.


Has our judicial system slipped some 'presumed' business in somewhere?

The presumption of innocence has been part of common law for centuries, and can be found in Justinian's code. It is quite an important concept as well as an ancient one. The presumption is before the jury renders a verdict. Put another way, we say "Innocent until proven guilty".

Sorry, Monty. I'll make this easier.

The Jury are asked, as far as I know, do you find the accused to be;

A: Guilty?

B: Not Guilty