The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Mikaeel Kular

Page 31 of 34 Previous  1 ... 17 ... 30, 31, 32, 33, 34  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by tiny on 21.01.14 16:37

thank you candyfloss,but i cant for the life of me see that anything we might say could prejudice a crime committed in Scotland.

tiny

Posts : 2274
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2010-02-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 21.01.14 16:42

Team McCann would absolutely love the opportunity to refer this forum to the authorities and get it closed down. It's probably best that we don't give them any ammunition.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by Tony Bennett on 21.01.14 16:44

@tiny wrote:Can I ask again that if the McCanns are ever charged with the death of Madeleine will we still be able to talk about it on here or is it a no go,
only it seems some members are saying because Rosdeep has been charged we should not be commenting on it.

I shall have a go at answering this.

The primary aim of the sub judice rule is to prevent juries from being infliuenced by what they see or hear in the papers or on the TV media.

This could either hinder or benefit the defendant.

If a lot of people in the mass media start digging up all sorts of negative material about a defendant, it might prejudice the jury. Similarly, it is thought right not to let juries know about a person's previous criminal record.

Unfortunately, this means that not a few guilty people are acquitted of a serious crime, e.g. rape or violence - and then we learn after the trial that the defendant has a string of convictions for similar things.  

But it works the other way round as well. In the lead-up to the Michael le Vell trial, there were many media articles basically saying what a wonderful bloke he was. Could that have influenced the jury?

These days, judges instruct juries not to look at the internet and are reminded to form their judgment 'only on what they see and hear in this court'.

Actually, in the days when juries were formed from local people - and before mass transport and communications - most of the jurors would know of the accused personally and, some would say, were consequently in a much better position to know if someone was guilty or innocent.

If a trial is before a judge only (e.g. a civil trial for damages), then the sub judice rule doesn't apply because judges are said to be incapable of being influenced by the media; they only make correct decisions according to the law of the land.

So, the general rule is: no comment (adverse or otherwise) if it could affect a jury's decision.

Strictly speaking, even some of the factual, or allegedly factual, comments on this thread (including one or two of my own), and any speculation, could conceivably influence a jury - and that is why Admin and Mods here take any allegations or other comment about a case after someone has been charged with great caution. Another current example is the trial of the alleged 'phone hackers - Rebekah Brooks, Andy Coulson and the others.

Having said that, there is a difference between what might by said on the BBC or SKY News, the Sun or the Times, all seen or read by millions - and what is said on a thread viewed by a few dozen people. You might be taking a risk on Twitter, as Sally Bercow found out to her cost with a libellous allegation, and as I also found out to my cost, but the risk of anyone here damaging a fair trial of Rosdeep Kular (or anyone else charged with an offence) is very minimal. For example, by now, there may already be tens of thousands of comments, some factual, some not, some fair, some unfair - about Rosdeep Kular. Should they all be cleared from the internet? It would be impossible.

So, if the McCanns are charged, could anyone comment about it? Strictly speaking, no, if your comment could amount to prejudicing a fair trial.

But in fact the amount of comment there has already been on the McCann case could yet prove a legal basis for not charging the McCanns with anything, even if there were reasonable grounds for suspicion against them.

The police have from time to time charged people with serious criminal offences, only to find out later that a judge has ruled that they could not receive a fair trial because of prejudical publicity.

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by Cristobell on 21.01.14 16:49

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I for one cannot see why not as we did about Tia Sharp and April Jones without the sky falling in around us.


I agree. We have been playing semantics with Kevin this past 7 years years, so we have plenty of experience!  yes 

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by Guest on 21.01.14 16:50

Re Tony's last paragraph, I remember that happening with assault charges against the then partner of the EastEnders actress Gillian Taylforth.

Are there any other recent examples?

I have to say that I would class a story in one of the tabloids that Rosdeep Kular's children have been in care as being prejudicial.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by mysterion on 21.01.14 16:57

So, could all such cases were a judge decides that there cannot be a fair trial because of prejudice, be tried by a judge or judges instead.

mysterion

Posts : 358
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by Guest on 21.01.14 17:02

@mysterion wrote:So, could all such cases were a judge decides that there cannot be a fair trial because of prejudice, be tried by a judge or judges instead.
***
IMO a very good suggestion, as has been practised for quite a while in quite a number of countries.

ETA not to say that learned and experienced judges cannot make mistakes ...

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by tiny on 21.01.14 17:10

Thank you Tony,but would that apply to forums such as this one


sorry just reread you post,thanks for the that

tiny

Posts : 2274
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2010-02-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by Cristobell on 21.01.14 17:15

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@tiny wrote:Can I ask again that if the McCanns are ever charged with the death of Madeleine will we still be able to talk about it on here or is it a no go,
only it seems some members are saying because Rosdeep has been charged we should not be commenting on it.

I shall have a go at answering this.

The primary aim of the sub judice rule is to prevent juries from being infliuenced by what they see or hear in the papers or on the TV media.

This could either hinder or benefit the defendant.

If a lot of people in the mass media start digging up all sorts of negative material about a defendant, it might prejudice the jury. Similarly, it is thought right not to let juries know about a person's previous criminal record.

Unfortunately, this means that not a few guilty people are acquitted of a serious crime, e.g. rape or violence - and then we learn after the trial that the defendant has a string of convictions for similar things.  

But it works the other way round as well. In the lead-up to the Michael le Vell trial, there were many media articles basically saying what a wonderful bloke he was. Could that have influenced the jury?

These days, judges instruct juries not to look at the internet and are reminded to form their judgment 'only on what they see and hear in this court'.

Actually, in the days when juries were formed from local people - and before mass transport and communications - most of the jurors would know of the accused personally and, some would say, were consequently in a much better position to know if someone was guilty or innocent.

If a trial is before a judge only (e.g. a civil trial for damages), then the sub judice rule doesn't apply because judges are said to be incapable of being influenced by the media; they only make correct decisions according to the law of the land.

So, the general rule is: no comment (adverse or otherwise) if it could affect a jury's decision.

Strictly speaking, even some of the factual, or allegedly factual, comments on this thread (including one or two of my own), and any speculation, could conceivably influence a jury - and that is why Admin and Mods here take any allegations or other comment about a case after someone has been charged with great caution. Another current example is the trial of the alleged 'phone hackers - Rebekah Brooks, Andy Coulson and the others.

Having said that, there is a difference between what might by said on the BBC or SKY News, the Sun or the Times, all seen or read by millions - and what is said on a thread viewed by a few dozen people. You might be taking a risk on Twitter, as Sally Bercow found out to her cost with a libellous allegation, and as I also found out to my cost, but the risk of anyone here damaging a fair trial of Rosdeep Kular (or anyone else charged with an offence) is very minimal. For example, by now, there may already be tens of thousands of comments, some factual, some not, some fair, some unfair - about Rosdeep Kular. Should they all be cleared from the internet? It would be impossible.

So, if the McCanns are charged, could anyone comment about it? Strictly speaking, no, if your comment could amount to prejudicing a fair trial.

But in fact the amount of comment there has already been on the McCann case could yet prove a legal basis for not charging the McCanns with anything, even if there were reasonable grounds for suspicion against them.

The police have from time to time charged people with serious criminal offences, only to find out later that a judge has ruled that they could not receive a fair trial because of prejudical publicity.


Re highlighted paragraph above.  I have often wondered if the proactive campaign to defend the McCanns has been their aim all along.  That is, the activity of their monitors, and their spokesman, is intended to antagonise and provoke reaction, in order that they may scream 'Haters', and mistrial should they ever be brought to justice.  Perhaps they could claim the trial is political, the result of a witch hunt.  Unfair publicity has turned the public against them, who know.  It might explain why the newspapers remain so nice and supportive, they ain't gonna risk anything that might get the despicable pair off the hook.  

I sometimes wonder if the huge media campaign was  all part of Gerry's 'Wider Agenda'?  Then I tut, when I realise how naive that sounds.  As we speak there are probably dozens of article clerks wading through Law books looking for precedents to get the well clad pair off the hook, and the phenomenal publicity that has surrounded this case may well form a part of that defence.



Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by Smokeandmirrors on 21.01.14 17:19

@tiny wrote:Thank you Tony,but would that apply to forums such as this one


sorry just reread you post,thanks for the that
Tony could probably give you a better answer than me, but if you take the traffic here as an example, compared to all the people eligible to serve on a jury, one could argue that the chances of a jury being so influenced by this forum is extremely minimal. In fact out of 30 or whatever who are called up for selection, there probably wouldn't even be one of them that have heard of this or have been sufficiently interested in the case beyond the crap the media have printed.

We're a rare breed, most of the population are more interested in Celebrity Big Brother than a criminal case.

____________________
The truth will out.

Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2428
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2011-07-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by tiny on 21.01.14 17:19

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@tiny wrote:Can I ask again that if the McCanns are ever charged with the death of Madeleine will we still be able to talk about it on here or is it a no go,
only it seems some members are saying because Rosdeep has been charged we should not be commenting on it.

I shall have a go at answering this.

The primary aim of the sub judice rule is to prevent juries from being infliuenced by what they see or hear in the papers or on the TV media.

This could either hinder or benefit the defendant.

If a lot of people in the mass media start digging up all sorts of negative material about a defendant, it might prejudice the jury. Similarly, it is thought right not to let juries know about a person's previous criminal record.

Unfortunately, this means that not a few guilty people are acquitted of a serious crime, e.g. rape or violence - and then we learn after the trial that the defendant has a string of convictions for similar things.  

But it works the other way round as well. In the lead-up to the Michael le Vell trial, there were many media articles basically saying what a wonderful bloke he was. Could that have influenced the jury?

These days, judges instruct juries not to look at the internet and are reminded to form their judgment 'only on what they see and hear in this court'.

Actually, in the days when juries were formed from local people - and before mass transport and communications - most of the jurors would know of the accused personally and, some would say, were consequently in a much better position to know if someone was guilty or innocent.

If a trial is before a judge only (e.g. a civil trial for damages), then the sub judice rule doesn't apply because judges are said to be incapable of being influenced by the media; they only make correct decisions according to the law of the land.

So, the general rule is: no comment (adverse or otherwise) if it could affect a jury's decision.

Strictly speaking, even some of the factual, or allegedly factual, comments on this thread (including one or two of my own), and any speculation, could conceivably influence a jury - and that is why Admin and Mods here take any allegations or other comment about a case after someone has been charged with great caution. Another current example is the trial of the alleged 'phone hackers - Rebekah Brooks, Andy Coulson and the others.

Having said that, there is a difference between what might by said on the BBC or SKY News, the Sun or the Times, all seen or read by millions - and what is said on a thread viewed by a few dozen people. You might be taking a risk on Twitter, as Sally Bercow found out to her cost with a libellous allegation, and as I also found out to my cost, but the risk of anyone here damaging a fair trial of Rosdeep Kular (or anyone else charged with an offence) is very minimal. For example, by now, there may already be tens of thousands of comments, some factual, some not, some fair, some unfair - about Rosdeep Kular. Should they all be cleared from the internet? It would be impossible.

So, if the McCanns are charged, could anyone comment about it? Strictly speaking, no, if your comment could amount to prejudicing a fair trial.

But in fact the amount of comment there has already been on the McCann case could yet prove a legal basis for not charging the McCanns with anything, even if there were reasonable grounds for suspicion against them.

The police have from time to time charged people with serious criminal offences, only to find out later that a judge has ruled that they could not receive a fair trial because of prejudical publicity.
might as well shut up shop then

tiny

Posts : 2274
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2010-02-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by Smokeandmirrors on 21.01.14 17:28

@Cristobell wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@tiny wrote:Can I ask again that if the McCanns are ever charged with the death of Madeleine will we still be able to talk about it on here or is it a no go,
only it seems some members are saying because Rosdeep has been charged we should not be commenting on it.

I shall have a go at answering this.

The primary aim of the sub judice rule is to prevent juries from being infliuenced by what they see or hear in the papers or on the TV media.

This could either hinder or benefit the defendant.

If a lot of people in the mass media start digging up all sorts of negative material about a defendant, it might prejudice the jury. Similarly, it is thought right not to let juries know about a person's previous criminal record.

Unfortunately, this means that not a few guilty people are acquitted of a serious crime, e.g. rape or violence - and then we learn after the trial that the defendant has a string of convictions for similar things.  

But it works the other way round as well. In the lead-up to the Michael le Vell trial, there were many media articles basically saying what a wonderful bloke he was. Could that have influenced the jury?

These days, judges instruct juries not to look at the internet and are reminded to form their judgment 'only on what they see and hear in this court'.

Actually, in the days when juries were formed from local people - and before mass transport and communications - most of the jurors would know of the accused personally and, some would say, were consequently in a much better position to know if someone was guilty or innocent.

If a trial is before a judge only (e.g. a civil trial for damages), then the sub judice rule doesn't apply because judges are said to be incapable of being influenced by the media; they only make correct decisions according to the law of the land.

So, the general rule is: no comment (adverse or otherwise) if it could affect a jury's decision.

Strictly speaking, even some of the factual, or allegedly factual, comments on this thread (including one or two of my own), and any speculation, could conceivably influence a jury - and that is why Admin and Mods here take any allegations or other comment about a case after someone has been charged with great caution. Another current example is the trial of the alleged 'phone hackers - Rebekah Brooks, Andy Coulson and the others.

Having said that, there is a difference between what might by said on the BBC or SKY News, the Sun or the Times, all seen or read by millions - and what is said on a thread viewed by a few dozen people. You might be taking a risk on Twitter, as Sally Bercow found out to her cost with a libellous allegation, and as I also found out to my cost, but the risk of anyone here damaging a fair trial of Rosdeep Kular (or anyone else charged with an offence) is very minimal. For example, by now, there may already be tens of thousands of comments, some factual, some not, some fair, some unfair - about Rosdeep Kular. Should they all be cleared from the internet? It would be impossible.

So, if the McCanns are charged, could anyone comment about it? Strictly speaking, no, if your comment could amount to prejudicing a fair trial.

But in fact the amount of comment there has already been on the McCann case could yet prove a legal basis for not charging the McCanns with anything, even if there were reasonable grounds for suspicion against them.

The police have from time to time charged people with serious criminal offences, only to find out later that a judge has ruled that they could not receive a fair trial because of prejudical publicity.


Re highlighted paragraph above.  I have often wondered if the proactive campaign to defend the McCanns has been their aim all along.  That is, the activity of their monitors, and their spokesman, is intended to antagonise and provoke reaction, in order that they may scream 'Haters', and mistrial should they ever be brought to justice.  Perhaps they could claim the trial is political, the result of a witch hunt.  Unfair publicity has turned the public against them, who know.  It might explain why the newspapers remain so nice and supportive, they ain't gonna risk anything that might get the despicable pair off the hook.  

I sometimes wonder if the huge media campaign was  all part of Gerry's 'Wider Agenda'?  Then I tut, when I realise how naive that sounds.  As we speak there are probably dozens of article clerks wading through Law books looking for precedents to get the well clad pair off the hook, and the phenomenal publicity that has surrounded this case may well form a part of that defence.



I absolutely think the immediate and frantic spread of misinformation about smashed shutters, paedophiles, a child not possibly being able to wake up and wander yada yada, was part of a deliberate ploy to muddy the waters, get so much attention, carry out so many tacky publicity stunts, Popes, balloons and the rest of the distasteful charade including the "novel", that they would make it nigh on impossible for charges to be made unless they were caught red handed with a corpse. 

They went against the police requests not to carry on as they did, their constant refusals to co-operate, and this disgusting attitude that they have tried to direct the criminal investigation, as if they could possibly know what's best, have all been with the ultimate goal of screwing up the polices chances of a normal, rational investigation.

If they had behaved in a sensible fashion closure would have happened long ago IMO.

____________________
The truth will out.

Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2428
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2011-07-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by Tony Bennett on 21.01.14 17:28

@Smokeandmirrors wrote:
We're a rare breed, most of the population are more interested in Celebrity Big Brother than a criminal case.

Or, 'Benefits Street'

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by Smokeandmirrors on 21.01.14 17:31

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Smokeandmirrors wrote:
We're a rare breed, most of the population are more interested in Celebrity Big Brother than a criminal case.

Or, 'Benefits Street'

Oh, don't! I can't bring myself to watch it. We know what's going on out there, and it's not entertaining. It's scary - makes me want to nip down to BandQ and get another lock for the front door and blackout curtains!

____________________
The truth will out.

Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2428
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2011-07-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by tasprin on 21.01.14 17:34

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:
I have to say that I would class a story in one of the tabloids that Rosdeep Kular's children have been in care as being prejudicial.

So would I.

tasprin

Posts : 834
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2013-01-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by Guest on 21.01.14 17:35


Withdrawn

See Todays Guardian on the report by Carter Ruck on Syria war crimes

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by tasprin on 21.01.14 17:36

@Smokeandmirrors wrote:
I absolutely think the immediate and frantic spread of misinformation about smashed shutters, paedophiles, a child not possibly being able to wake up and wander yada yada, was part of a deliberate ploy to muddy the waters, get so much attention, carry out so many tacky publicity stunts, Popes, balloons and the rest of the distasteful charade including the "novel", that they would make it nigh on impossible for charges to be made unless they were caught red handed with a corpse. 

They went against the police requests not to carry on as they did, their constant refusals to co-operate, and this disgusting attitude that they have tried to direct the criminal investigation, as if they could possibly know what's best, have all been with the ultimate goal of screwing up the polices chances of a normal, rational investigation.

If they had behaved in a sensible fashion closure would have happened long ago IMO.

Absolutely spot on.

tasprin

Posts : 834
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2013-01-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by aiyoyo on 21.01.14 18:02

@Smokeandmirrors wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Smokeandmirrors wrote:
We're a rare breed, most of the population are more interested in Celebrity Big Brother than a criminal case.

Or, 'Benefits Street'

Oh, don't! I can't bring myself to watch it. We know what's going on out there, and it's not entertaining. It's scary - makes me want to nip down to BandQ and get another lock for the front door and blackout curtains!

Good grief ! What is Benefit Street ?

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by aiyoyo on 21.01.14 18:08

@tiny wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@tiny wrote:Can I ask again that if the McCanns are ever charged with the death of Madeleine will we still be able to talk about it on here or is it a no go,
only it seems some members are saying because Rosdeep has been charged we should not be commenting on it.

I shall have a go at answering this.

The primary aim of the sub judice rule is to prevent juries from being infliuenced by what they see or hear in the papers or on the TV media.

This could either hinder or benefit the defendant.

If a lot of people in the mass media start digging up all sorts of negative material about a defendant, it might prejudice the jury. Similarly, it is thought right not to let juries know about a person's previous criminal record.

Unfortunately, this means that not a few guilty people are acquitted of a serious crime, e.g. rape or violence - and then we learn after the trial that the defendant has a string of convictions for similar things.  

But it works the other way round as well. In the lead-up to the Michael le Vell trial, there were many media articles basically saying what a wonderful bloke he was. Could that have influenced the jury?

These days, judges instruct juries not to look at the internet and are reminded to form their judgment 'only on what they see and hear in this court'.

Actually, in the days when juries were formed from local people - and before mass transport and communications - most of the jurors would know of the accused personally and, some would say, were consequently in a much better position to know if someone was guilty or innocent.

If a trial is before a judge only (e.g. a civil trial for damages), then the sub judice rule doesn't apply because judges are said to be incapable of being influenced by the media; they only make correct decisions according to the law of the land.

So, the general rule is: no comment (adverse or otherwise) if it could affect a jury's decision.

Strictly speaking, even some of the factual, or allegedly factual, comments on this thread (including one or two of my own), and any speculation, could conceivably influence a jury - and that is why Admin and Mods here take any allegations or other comment about a case after someone has been charged with great caution. Another current example is the trial of the alleged 'phone hackers - Rebekah Brooks, Andy Coulson and the others.

Having said that, there is a difference between what might by said on the BBC or SKY News, the Sun or the Times, all seen or read by millions - and what is said on a thread viewed by a few dozen people. You might be taking a risk on Twitter, as Sally Bercow found out to her cost with a libellous allegation, and as I also found out to my cost, but the risk of anyone here damaging a fair trial of Rosdeep Kular (or anyone else charged with an offence) is very minimal. For example, by now, there may already be tens of thousands of comments, some factual, some not, some fair, some unfair - about Rosdeep Kular. Should they all be cleared from the internet? It would be impossible.

So, if the McCanns are charged, could anyone comment about it? Strictly speaking, no, if your comment could amount to prejudicing a fair trial.

But in fact the amount of comment there has already been on the McCann case could yet prove a legal basis for not charging the McCanns with anything, even if there were reasonable grounds for suspicion against them.

The police have from time to time charged people with serious criminal offences, only to find out later that a judge has ruled that they could not receive a fair trial because of prejudical publicity.
might as well shut up shop then

tiny, why are you labouring on about a non-issue ?


aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by tiny on 21.01.14 18:10

@aiyoyo wrote:
@tiny wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@tiny wrote:Can I ask again that if the McCanns are ever charged with the death of Madeleine will we still be able to talk about it on here or is it a no go,
only it seems some members are saying because Rosdeep has been charged we should not be commenting on it.

I shall have a go at answering this.

The primary aim of the sub judice rule is to prevent juries from being infliuenced by what they see or hear in the papers or on the TV media.

This could either hinder or benefit the defendant.

If a lot of people in the mass media start digging up all sorts of negative material about a defendant, it might prejudice the jury. Similarly, it is thought right not to let juries know about a person's previous criminal record.

Unfortunately, this means that not a few guilty people are acquitted of a serious crime, e.g. rape or violence - and then we learn after the trial that the defendant has a string of convictions for similar things.  

But it works the other way round as well. In the lead-up to the Michael le Vell trial, there were many media articles basically saying what a wonderful bloke he was. Could that have influenced the jury?

These days, judges instruct juries not to look at the internet and are reminded to form their judgment 'only on what they see and hear in this court'.

Actually, in the days when juries were formed from local people - and before mass transport and communications - most of the jurors would know of the accused personally and, some would say, were consequently in a much better position to know if someone was guilty or innocent.

If a trial is before a judge only (e.g. a civil trial for damages), then the sub judice rule doesn't apply because judges are said to be incapable of being influenced by the media; they only make correct decisions according to the law of the land.

So, the general rule is: no comment (adverse or otherwise) if it could affect a jury's decision.

Strictly speaking, even some of the factual, or allegedly factual, comments on this thread (including one or two of my own), and any speculation, could conceivably influence a jury - and that is why Admin and Mods here take any allegations or other comment about a case after someone has been charged with great caution. Another current example is the trial of the alleged 'phone hackers - Rebekah Brooks, Andy Coulson and the others.

Having said that, there is a difference between what might by said on the BBC or SKY News, the Sun or the Times, all seen or read by millions - and what is said on a thread viewed by a few dozen people. You might be taking a risk on Twitter, as Sally Bercow found out to her cost with a libellous allegation, and as I also found out to my cost, but the risk of anyone here damaging a fair trial of Rosdeep Kular (or anyone else charged with an offence) is very minimal. For example, by now, there may already be tens of thousands of comments, some factual, some not, some fair, some unfair - about Rosdeep Kular. Should they all be cleared from the internet? It would be impossible.

So, if the McCanns are charged, could anyone comment about it? Strictly speaking, no, if your comment could amount to prejudicing a fair trial.

But in fact the amount of comment there has already been on the McCann case could yet prove a legal basis for not charging the McCanns with anything, even if there were reasonable grounds for suspicion against them.

The police have from time to time charged people with serious criminal offences, only to find out later that a judge has ruled that they could not receive a fair trial because of prejudical publicity.
might as well shut up shop then

tiny, why are you labouring on about a non-issue ?

what non issue would that be then

tiny

Posts : 2274
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2010-02-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by aiyoyo on 21.01.14 18:13

"Might as well shut up shop then " comment aimed at what ?

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by tiny on 21.01.14 18:17

@aiyoyo wrote:"Might as well shut up shop then " comment aimed at what ?

this from tony,s post
                                 
But in fact the amount of comment there has already been on the McCann case could yet prove a legal basis for not charging the McCanns with anything, even if there were reasonable grounds for suspicion against them.

tiny

Posts : 2274
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2010-02-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by confusion on 21.01.14 19:45

I'm not sure why the McCanns fund is being discussed on a thread about a 3 year old boys murder?? Off topic isn't it.
For anyone that's interested they are having a detailed and interesting discussion on Websleuths.com about the murder. Also without the bickering that seems to go on in here!

confusion

Posts : 11
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-01-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by Smokeandmirrors on 21.01.14 20:20

@aiyoyo wrote:
@Smokeandmirrors wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Smokeandmirrors wrote:
We're a rare breed, most of the population are more interested in Celebrity Big Brother than a criminal case.

Or, 'Benefits Street'

Oh, don't! I can't bring myself to watch it. We know what's going on out there, and it's not entertaining. It's scary - makes me want to nip down to BandQ and get another lock for the front door and blackout curtains!

Good grief ! What is Benefit Street ?
From what I've seen in the mee-jah, it is a programme about a road where 90% of the residents are living on benefits, and the pictures I've seen along with the write-ups look like a place you would never go out of choice.

____________________
The truth will out.

Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2428
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2011-07-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mikaeel Kular

Post by Monty Heck on 21.01.14 20:42

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@tiny wrote:Can I ask again that if the McCanns are ever charged with the death of Madeleine will we still be able to talk about it on here or is it a no go,
only it seems some members are saying because Rosdeep has been charged we should not be commenting on it.

I shall have a go at answering this.

The primary aim of the sub judice rule is to prevent juries from being infliuenced by what they see or hear in the papers or on the TV media.

This could either hinder or benefit the defendant.

If a lot of people in the mass media start digging up all sorts of negative material about a defendant, it might prejudice the jury. Similarly, it is thought right not to let juries know about a person's previous criminal record.

Unfortunately, this means that not a few guilty people are acquitted of a serious crime, e.g. rape or violence - and then we learn after the trial that the defendant has a string of convictions for similar things.  

But it works the other way round as well. In the lead-up to the Michael le Vell trial, there were many media articles basically saying what a wonderful bloke he was. Could that have influenced the jury?

These days, judges instruct juries not to look at the internet and are reminded to form their judgment 'only on what they see and hear in this court'.

Actually, in the days when juries were formed from local people - and before mass transport and communications - most of the jurors would know of the accused personally and, some would say, were consequently in a much better position to know if someone was guilty or innocent.

If a trial is before a judge only (e.g. a civil trial for damages), then the sub judice rule doesn't apply because judges are said to be incapable of being influenced by the media; they only make correct decisions according to the law of the land.

So, the general rule is: no comment (adverse or otherwise) if it could affect a jury's decision.

Strictly speaking, even some of the factual, or allegedly factual, comments on this thread (including one or two of my own), and any speculation, could conceivably influence a jury - and that is why Admin and Mods here take any allegations or other comment about a case after someone has been charged with great caution. Another current example is the trial of the alleged 'phone hackers - Rebekah Brooks, Andy Coulson and the others.

Having said that, there is a difference between what might by said on the BBC or SKY News, the Sun or the Times, all seen or read by millions - and what is said on a thread viewed by a few dozen people. You might be taking a risk on Twitter, as Sally Bercow found out to her cost with a libellous allegation, and as I also found out to my cost, but the risk of anyone here damaging a fair trial of Rosdeep Kular (or anyone else charged with an offence) is very minimal. For example, by now, there may already be tens of thousands of comments, some factual, some not, some fair, some unfair - about Rosdeep Kular. Should they all be cleared from the internet? It would be impossible.

So, if the McCanns are charged, could anyone comment about it? Strictly speaking, no, if your comment could amount to prejudicing a fair trial.

But in fact the amount of comment there has already been on the McCann case could yet prove a legal basis for not charging the McCanns with anything, even if there were reasonable grounds for suspicion against them.

The police have from time to time charged people with serious criminal offences, only to find out later that a judge has ruled that they could not receive a fair trial because of prejudical publicity.
Wouldn't any rules relating to negative publicity and the potential to prejudice putative jurors only be applicable if there were to be a trial in England?  If the case were to be heard in Portugal the rules there regarding reporting/publicity would be applicable, whatever they may be.

With regard the earlier discussion regarding potential for acquittal in the Scottish legal system, the Double Jeopardy Scotland Act 2011 has provided scope for a retrial where, for example, compelling new evidence following acquittal has come to light.  There are indeed 3 options open to Scottish juries as someone indicated several pages back (apologies, forgot to note who): guilty, not proven (also an acquital but one which acknowledges that the Crown failed to prove its case) or not guilty.

Monty Heck

Posts : 470
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2012-09-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 31 of 34 Previous  1 ... 17 ... 30, 31, 32, 33, 34  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum