From another thread: UK law: Innocent until proven guilty

I have taken this from another post which was going way off thread:

robertt8696 :-   The other point you raise is ruining someone’s life by things such as the current stars on trial for historical sex offences, and i personally feel that the law should be upheld, but in the event of ANY court action, not just sex offences, i think there should be more anonymity of the accused, and the accuser, until the trial is over. This would most likely result in a fair trial, and the right outcome. When the trial is over let the person , if found guilty be exposed to the full glare of public inspection, as to do as we do now, i feel prejudges a case, and maybe influences a decision, and surely under English law, is not a person innocent UNTIL FOUND GUILTY? This would only happen after a fair trial, which i don’t believe is the case presently.

Whilst I can understand one thinking that an accused person’s ID should not be divulged if or until they are convicted, that the persons name is published may mean that victims of that person, who may have not made a complaint previously, say for fear of not being believed, may come forward.  

Although allegations from long ago are very difficult to prove, there can be compelling reasons to believe them. .  Example.  If say 10 women come forward, whom it can be proved do not know each other,and each make allegations which are identical in their MO, that increases the chance that the allegations are true, and may mean that a prosecution may be successful.

The presumption in UK law, that a person is innocent UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY:  That is the reason why it is so difficult to convince a jury, beyond all reasonable doubt, that a person is guilty.   However,  a person not found guilty is never proved to be innocent “     In the UK, it is considerably more likely that a guilty person will walk free than an innocent one will be convicted.  Scotland have the 'half way house' of being able to return a verdict of 'not proven.'

 

This message was last edited by johnzx on 28/03/2014.

This message was last edited by johnzx on 28/03/2014.

 Spam post or abuse? Please let us know

Although allegations from long ago are very difficult to prove, there can be compelling reasons to believe them. . Example. If say 10 women cme forward, whom it can be proved do not know each other,and each make allegations which are identical in their MO, that increases the chance that the allegations are true, and may mean that a prosecution may be successful.
I Johnzx wrote the above-I agree, but In a recent court case, involving a celebrity, the allegations came from many different women, from different parts of the country and there was a not guilty verdict, which I think caused some surprise!

This message was last edited by camposol on 28/03/2014.

 Spam post or abuse? Please let us know

but In a recent court case, involving a celebrity, the allegations came from many different women, from different parts of the country and there was a not guilty verdict, which I think caused some surprise!

I don't know why you are surprised.  Having heard 'jury stories' for over 30 years, of why they convicted or acquitted, almost always for the wrong reasons,   I know the jury system in UK has not worked for years and I suspect that it is getting worse.

 Spam post or abuse? Please let us know

The jury system as it is now in the UK is the best, whats the alternative? Another "Secret" gaggle of so called expert idiots behind locked doors, the likes of which have come to light over the past months, now that has more then surprised many to have found this type of justice even existed in a so called civilised society.

 

 

 Spam post or abuse? Please let us know

Quote:-   It is a contempt of court for a juror to disclose, or for anyone else (including the press) to enquire into, the nature of the jury's deliberations. This is an effective bar on jury research in England and Wales, and on appeals on the basis of the jury's method of reaching its decision

“This is an effective bar on jury research"     Thus how can anyone say they work, unless they have heard very many stories from people who were jurers ?  As I said, I have.

Quote from The Guardian "The judge in Vicky Pryce's trial dismissed the jury after their questions revealed they did not understand their task."

I have been present in court on a number of occasions when jury members have been unable to read the (pretty simple)  oath, and have had to repeat it after the usher read it out. They then went on to try the case,  several of which were very complicated fraud cases.

As I said, juries do not work, but research into whether they do is not permitted by law.

 Spam post or abuse? Please let us know