Cliff Richard - ?

Marian · **Joined:** Wed Feb 01, 2012 3:06 pm **Posts:** 452

When you really think about it, one of the Rules of Natural Justice should be that the judges and those in control MUST be the ones to make sure the rules are followed. The right to a 'fair hearing' (Human Rights) which amounts to 'procedural fairness' under the Rules of Natural Justice is what everyone would expect and yet, if there are doubts about the jurors ability to fully understand (which has been pointed out on here), without this problem being sorted out beforehand, this could lead to unfairness.

Also, in the Rules of Natural Justice, there is reference to the subject of evidence which could be at odds with what we have seen happening quite recently.

www.justice4you.org/natural%20_justice.php

geezer466 · **Joined:** Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:06 pm **Posts:** 1307

Westonman wrote:

geezer466 wrote:

Jury's need to be directed by the judge who is after all the professional and experienced legal brain and who controls/directs the trial.

The judge in this case should have pointed out the weakness of the evidence of some of the charges but chose not to. The jury could then have weighed that evidence in balance with the judges remarks.

I would like to clarify my opinion on that statement. Juries only need directing by the judge concerning matters of law, not concerning the verdict. One case I sat on, the judge effectively tried to direct the jury to find the accused guilty. I think the judge was completely out of order.

Judges will direct a jury to find a defendant not guilty if they think the evidence is exceptionally weak or a witness does not appear or the CPS does not present evidence.

I judges do act or say something which is out of order it can provide grounds for appeal. It would seem in this case the judge did nothing and did not direct the jury either way.

The appeal in the Harris case is pending and I hope he gets a fairer trial than he did this time round. The fact the appeal court is heard by 3 senior judges and not a jury must stand in his favour.

Jon · **Joined:** Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:05 pm **Posts:** 2807

Natural justice and the justice system are sadly often two different things. I feel sorry for any innocent person at the mercy of the justice system because there are no guarantees natural justice will prevail.

As for allowing jurors who can't speak English.... that's so perverse you wonder if maybe it's part of an agenda to undermine trial by jury.

Rich Kid · **Joined:** Thu Sep 13, 2012 2:31 pm **Posts:** 663

geezer466 wrote:

The appeal in the Harris case is pending and I hope he gets a fairer trial than he did this time round. The fact the appeal court is heard by 3 senior judges and not a jury must stand in his favour.

From my reading of the case Rolf Harris got a fair trial and the jury delivered their verdict, which I happen to agree with, but we'll see how he gets on with his appeal.

SOT · **Joined:** Fri Jan 20, 2012 8:14 pm **Posts:** 659

Maybe in 25 years time, the salient parts of trials will be tweeted and the general (Twitter) public will decide guilty or not. Perhaps Facebook users and Youtube viewers could get involved too

And of course for high profile cases, by watching channel 1001 on Freeview, TV viewers will be able to press their red button to ensure justice is seen to be done. (Sky will have more cameras and a behind the scenes portion to their output). No doubt the judge with have to pause between reading the results and saying "Rolf Harris, on the count of being a wrong un, Sky viewers find you .................................................................... guilty"

Or, we could just live with the imperfect but fair UK jury system

Westonman · **Joined:** Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:46 am **Posts:** 1806

Jon wrote:

As for allowing jurors who can't speak English.... that's so perverse you wonder if maybe it's part of an agenda to undermine trial by jury.

I had the same thought when I read of this situation, but didn't say so on here because I thought it would be rejected out of hand.

Ken Clarke is a great supporter of secret courts tried by judges only. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... ourts.html

Quote:

Ken Clarke: All 'right-thinking citizens' should support secret courts.

Rich Kid · **Joined:** Thu Sep 13, 2012 2:31 pm **Posts:** 663

Ken Clarke is wrong about many things, including the EU, thank God he's no longer in the government, this liberal conservative should never have been considered for office by Dave Cameron, another lib-dem wearing a blue tie.

geezer466 · **Joined:** Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:06 pm **Posts:** 1307

All the while the public's attention is being taken up with the celeb cases their attention is being diverted away from the people who really matter. Bit like the burying bad news tactic by Governments on otherwise heavy news day where they sneak out stories whilst the public attention is elsewhere.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/al ... ng-3830709

Quote:

An MP has written to Britain's most senior policeman to raise concerns that only two detectives are investigating an alleged paedophile ring .

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analy ... paedophile

Quote:

Allegations of a child abuse ring in Westminster in the 1980s are leaving parliament facing a huge scandal, its biggest for years. At the heart of the issue is the suspicion of an establishment cover-up - which makes it all the more painful that the present government is resisting calls for a full public inquiry.

http://www.tpuc.org/blair-covering-up-p ... e-scandal/

Quote:

While British Prime Minister Tony Blair is under criminal suspicion in the "honours-for-cash" scandal that has rocked his Labour government, we have been told that there is an even more explosive scandal that Blair, up to now, has managed to hide behind the draconian British policy of issuing "D-Notices," government orders that prohibit the British media from reporting on certain "national security" cases.

http://www.scriptonitedaily.com/2013/12 ... -to-no-10/

Quote:

UK Establishment Closes Ranks as Organised Child Sex Abuse Network Leads Back to No. 10

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest- ... ent-abuser

Quote:

It is one of the most shocking allegations to come to light since the Jimmy Savile child sex abuse scandal.

A victim has come forward to tell police about the nightmare he says he suffered at the hands of the Parliamentary member, who is a household name.

The media noise is now deafening regarding some of these people yet little if anything is being seen to be done.

Not to mention.. If you were an MP at the heart of a Westminster Peado ring what better way to gather Intel as to get to the heart of the childline organisation...

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/490176 ... llegations

Quote:

ESTHER Rantzen has said she is “horrified and disgusted” after her former lover Sir Nicholas Fairbairn was linked to the child abuse scandal at Westminster.

Westonman · **Joined:** Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:46 am **Posts:** 1806

geezer466 wrote:

All the while the public's attention is being taken up with the celeb cases their attention is being diverted away from the people who really matter. Bit like the burying bad news tactic by Governments on otherwise heavy news day where they sneak out stories whilst the public attention is elsewhere.

I agree with you there Geezer. But on the 1st November this year the Westminster charade becomes totally obsolete. And then all the filth on MPs can be revealed and the EU saviour set loose to save us from our own useful idiots, the corrupt politicians:

http://iainmckie.co.uk/uk-parliament-co ... -eu-rules/

Quote:

On the 1st November 2014 the right of Parliament to legislate over us in 43 areas, the important ones, will be removed and be made subject to approval. They call it QMV, Qualified Majority Voting.
Each member State will lose it right of Veto over these areas, so Cameron’s idea of negotiation to recover any areas goes out the window at the same time.

Is this the real reason why Cameron/Clegg agreed to a fixed term Parliament with elections next May - after the EU has total control?

Jon · **Joined:** Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:05 pm **Posts:** 2807

Fascinating. I expect there were going to be 38 and they've added 5 for Britain to win back in negotiations. This will then be presented as a triumph in time for the referendum.

News, views & chat from the people of West London
MAIN INDEX \| PHOTOS \| HAYES \| UXBRIDGE
+ + Check out the LATEST photos! + + JOIN THE DEBATES + + IT'S GOOD TO TALK! + +
WELCOME

Cliff Richard - ?

Who is online