Castle Aching

[St Enodoc]

15 hours ago, Donw said:

 

I remember the 60s well. MRC show at Central hall, some excellent layouts in the magazines. As for the wrecking ball that was Beeching it would be better perhaps not to remember.

There are other things I remember too the Beatles, RollingStones, Pink Floyd, Nice ( America with the burning flag), Blodwyn Pig, Jefferson Starship, Frank Zappa, Cream including the farewell concert , Joni Mitchell and so many more all seen live one could be forgiven not remembering it all.

 

Don

I'd forgotten all about Blodwyn Pig! Thank you don.

[Edwardian]

2 minutes ago, Malcolm 0-6-0 said:

There are many problems with our common system however, like democracy, it may be wrong at times but it is better than the alternative. In my home state of Victoria there is an ongoing inquiry into the behaviour of a defence barrister who was, at the same time as they were representing people charged with crimes was acting as a paid police informant against the same people. And they went as far as to encourage their clients into guilty pleas on the excuse of getting a better sentencing result at the behest of the police. This behaviour naturally goes against every standard of correct behaviour. And is one in which the ordinary citizen like myself can see no virtue in the behaviour of either the police or the criminals or the barrister.

 

However, and this is the rub, this barrister was representing a number of the major players in a very nasty and vicious drug gang war which saw some 25 drug dealers and petty criminals murdered over the space of around 10 years. Her clients now have very sound grounds for appeal against the long sentences they were given yet at the time made no secret of their behaviour and associations. So what is worse, that they stay incarcerated and therefore unable to create further harm or commit further murders, or win appeals and go back to their old lifestyle basically indemnified against  legal responsibility by the double jeopardy principle? Plus be able to claim substantial financial damages which the state i.e. the taxpayer will have to bear.

 

As it stands at the moment one person who was convicted of murder has already had their sentence quashed and was released. Whether it was deserved or not is irrelevant, it was the decision of the appeal judges based on the clearly unethical behaviour of the barrister. If they find that other presently incarcerated criminals who were involved in this bloody gangland violence have unsafe convictions because of the this barrister's behaviour as an informant, then it will test our justice system to its limits. Make no bones about it these are not people of Dreyfus like innocence, they are violent career criminals and murders whose past records alone should see them locked up.         

 

I heard of this case. Without knowing the details of rules applying in Victoria, I would nevertheless assume that this was both a gross breach of the barrister's code of conduct as well as serious impropriety by the police.

 

I can quite see how it would render the convictions concerned unsafe.  I believe that the Criminal Court of Appeal here has the ability to hold that, notwithstanding any defect in the prosecution, the guilt would have anyway have been established.  In a case such as this, however, it would be very difficult to be satisfied as to that. 

 

So, this unedifying tale is almost bound to have two very unfortunate effects; (i) an erosion of public confidence in the system and (ii) some very dangerous people set at liberty.

 

This, to me, merely underscores the necessity of everyone, from PC Plod to Hapless Juror, respecting the rules and playing with a straight bat; bending or breaking the rules to lock away someone you believe to be guilty may be tempting, but it is ultimately self-defeating.

 

My practice has encompassed civil fraud and tracing claims (which are legally and factually complex, and, frankly, way beyond the comprehension of the police), and this has brought me some insight into the criminal justice system, as there is obvious overlap.  I try to avoid the criminal system like the plague, first, because my job is to get my client's money back, which is not anywhere on the prosecution's list of priorities, and, second, because what I see of the criminal justice system in practice is disturbing and depressing.

 

Sadly, as has been pointed out, our system is very far from perfect in practice.  Miscarriages of justice are, I'm sure, shockingly common, and plenty of people are convicted on inference, without direct evidence to the requisite standard.  There are also some (to me, as a civil lawyer) shockingly draconian laws on the criminal statute book; the popular Daily Mail myth that the odds are stacked against the prosecutors is not something I have observed.  What little I have seen of the criminal justice system in practice is Crown Court judges recruited typically from prosecution barristers giving nothing like the time, patience, impartiality and intellectual effort that an equivalent civil judge would bring to bear.  And the civil courts, which, in my view, are vastly superior in every way to the criminal courts, are for the most part merely adjudicating on matters of money. I do not think the innocent are safe within our criminal justice system; the idea that the innocent have nothing to fear is a dangerous myth. That said, I daresay it's far worse in the majority of jurisdictions across the world. 

 

In the circumstances, it is more vital than ever to protect the basic principles of of the system, which are sound, hard-won, vital protections and must never be sacrificed for expediency; it's tough enough to protect the innocent with these principles in place!.

[Regularity]

11 hours ago, Donw said:

The other problem I have with our system based on my experience as a Juror is the admirable quality of people to give people the benefit of the doubt, It is then most disconcerting to discover that the defendant had been found guilty of a  number of previous cases. You feel rather duped.

 

Don

You weren’t “duped” at all. If the evidence presented by the prosecution for this case is insufficient/inadequate, then acquittal is the only option. 
Prior convictions have to be excluded, otherwise it is “double jeopardy” and the defendant is being judged a second time on “spent” convictions (if they are not spent, the defendant is on parole, so presumably different procedures apply). Similarly, previous unsuccessful prosecutions would be nothing more than hearsay.

It’s fundamental to our system that if there is reasonable doubt, the defendant goes free: it is up to the prosecution to provide sufficient substantial evidence to remove that doubt, without themselves operating outside the law: otherwise there is no rule of law.

 

Interesting that our host works in both pillars of western society: the rule of law and the payment of debts.

[Malcolm 0-6-0]

1 hour ago, Regularity said:

You weren’t “duped” at all. If the evidence presented by the prosecution for this case is insufficient/inadequate, then acquittal is the only option. 

 

Indeed, as in the ongoing situation I mentioned, we all expect that if charges are brought against people for crimes then it shouldn't be a game of chance but instead the inevitable result of an accumulation of evidence that demonstrates without reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. 

 

But the evidence given to the police by the barrister as they informed on their clients was by its nature inadmissible, so it needed to be laundered in such a way that the court was unaware of its source - the level of cynical corruption present in this matter created by all the parties is astounding. In those circumstances and despite the fact that these criminals actually made admissions to the police on the advice of their barrister, who in turn was using a script written by the police, doesn't in fact assuage their guilt it just puts them and us the citizen, all in the bind that the odd Scottish verdict "Not Proven" does. We know they did it, they admitted it and did deals to get lighter sentences yet, because they are all now appealing, there remains a good chance that they will go free and another round of tit for tat murders will commence.

 

The drug scene in Melbourne is now run by a whole new generation of criminals and the killings are as regular as they were then. What will happen when these convictions are overturned and old gangs and enmities are revived. To make matters worse one of the major players who was convicted of complicity in ten murders was himself murdered in prison, while another has suffered a severe bashing which apparently has given him serious brain damage. If the unethical convictions are overturned then we citizens will pay the cost of damages if suits are brought against the police. A few years ago, in a closed court judgement, the barrister received 3 million dollars in a secret settlement awarded against the police, as compensation for having to live in hiding under an assumed name. Something they very publicly reopened on their own because they was upset with the way the police handled the matter. Corruption, hypocrisy and stupid self-interest are a diabolical mixture.  

 

I think any reasonable citizen should expect a far greater standard of behaviour by two of the three divisions of the criminal justice system. So it is important that if cases are brought before the court then they should be of such a standard that they can beat reasonable doubt but also they should be arrived at by ethical means because as sure as eggs are eggs these sorts of corrupt practices never remain secret for ever - someone will always talk.    

Edited March 28, 2020 by Malcolm 0-6-0

[runs as required]

And now for something comple ...

Any other parishioner know of, or watch a film called " The Lost City of Z" on BBC2 last night around midnight?

I was about to go to bed but gave it a chance. I stayed watching for about an hour before falling asleep and waking up with   the testcard  it long over.

The question is: Do you recommend watching the whole thing ?

I'd never heard of it before but it seems to push all the dialectic opposites at the core of this thread:

The Heyday of Empire/ Militarism/Class/ Ireland/Coloniaism/Savages /Steam (punk) 

It looked to be an expensively made serious 'Ripping Yarn'. 

The highpoint for me was up an Amazonian tributary, a day or so after leaving 'Cosi fan Tutte' being sung in Manaos, an ambush with poisoned arrows zapping in. The hero saves the expedition by jumping overboard behind his punt and singing "Soldiers of the Queen Are We" while holding his prayer book up to protect his eye.  It receives an arrow deeply embedded in it.

dh

 

Edited March 28, 2020 by runs as required

[Malcolm 0-6-0]

2 minutes ago, runs as required said:

And now for something comple ...

Any other parishioner know of, or watch a film called " The Lost City of Z" on BBC2 last night around midnight?

I was about to go to bed but gave it a chance. I stayed watching for about an hour before falling asleep and waking up with   the testcard  it long over.

The question is: Do you recommend watching the whole thing ?

I'd never heard of it before but it seems to push all the dialectic opposites at the core of this thread:

The Heyday of Empire/ Militarism/Class/ Ireland/Coloniaism/Savages /Steam (punk) 

It looked to be an expensively made serious 'Ripping Yarn'. 

dh

 

 

That's about Fawcett isn't it - I read the book. It's sort of interesting but yes I agree it is a bit of a Pythonesque Ripping Yarn. 

[Buhar]

Convictions take a good while to be spent and recidivists don't ever get to that stage. Parole or release on licence is time limited and a serious offence alleged in that period should result in pretty swift recall to prison well before any trial. 

 

The CPS charging decision is good enough to establish balance of probabilities which, along with risk, is the criteria for recall. For woolly decision making and incompetence in this regard see the disaster of the recent McCann case.

 

So most defendants with precons will be neither on parole nor having spent convictions. 

Alan 

[Regularity]

Thanks, I suspected that to be the case, Alan, but am not familiar enough with this to have been more certain in my opinion.

[Donw]

3 hours ago, Regularity said:

You weren’t “duped” at all. If the evidence presented by the prosecution for this case is insufficient/inadequate, then acquittal is the only option. 
Prior convictions have to be excluded, otherwise it is “double jeopardy” and the defendant is being judged a second time on “spent” convictions (if they are not spent, the defendant is on parole, so presumably different procedures apply). Similarly, previous unsuccessful prosecutions would be nothing more than hearsay.

It’s fundamental to our system that if there is reasonable doubt, the defendant goes free: it is up to the prosecution to provide sufficient substantial evidence to remove that doubt, without themselves operating outside the law: otherwise there is no rule of law.

 

Interesting that our host works in both pillars of western society: the rule of law and the payment of debts.

 

In the case which involved shoplifting the defendant maintained it was a mistake. The jury felt that perhaps it had been a simple mistake and there was no intention to steal.  That would not have been how they felt if that had known of previous convictions.  The evidence was clear the person had left the shop with something in their pocket. How does one prove the intent?  I myself once realised in the supermarket that I had put one item in my pocket when it wasn't in the basket and was able to add it to the items for scanning. What if I hadn't realised it would have been quite accidental.

 

Don

 

ps I think  I said 'felt duped'  

Edited March 28, 2020 by Donw

[Edwardian]

My recollections of the study of criminal law are dim, however ...

 

Generally previous convictions can only be disclosed to rebut an assertion of "previous good character".

 

There is a whole complicated (well, complicated by the standards of criminal law/criminal lawyers) set of law about similar fact evidence, i.e. where evidence of prior similar conduct to that of which the accused is accused may be admitted as evidence.  The test, which, with all such tests, is easier to define than to apply, is that the probative value of the evidence must outweigh its prejudicial effect.

 

In Don's situation, it was still incumbent upon the Crown to prove that the accused had committed this particular offence, without the ability simply to infer guilt from previous conduct. For all you know, he did not steal on that last occasion, even if common sense suggests it was overwhelmingly likely that he did. I would worry if we adopted the sort of approach that said "well, he has stolen sheep before, so it doesn't much matter if we end up hanging him for the one he didn't steal".

 

Yes, the prosecutor's code requires the prosecution to be satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction where reasonable  prospect means 50% plus chance of success.  Thus, it does not take much to charge someone, far, far less than what should be required to convict. 

 

So, now, I shall seek relief in criminal justice as it should be ....

 

 

[Hroth]

And on topic too...

 

"The idiot who, in railway carriages
Scribbles on window-panes
We only suffer
To ride on a buffer
In Parliamentary trains"

 

 

[runs as required]

I apologise about posting trivial cr@p above before reading through the serious preceding posts.

 

My wife has just been obliged (through old age) to retire from supporting the longest lasting of her psychotherapy clients for some 30 years.
The client long ago said she would have ended her life, save for the support she received fom her counselling (which included a highly experienced supervisor of my wife’s client  sessions)

 

Without giving confidences away, this seems to be a most unjust outcome of a rape alleged to have taken place at a place of work. It had been the employer who labelled the incident a rape and initiated the whole legal process, including paying for my wife’s initial counselling support.

 

The Judge in a Crown Court pre-hearing of the Libel case brought by the alleged rapist, ruled as ‘inadmissible evidence’ the entire case prepared by the lawyers acting for the raped woman – in which my wife and two others had been called as ‘expert witnesses’. 
In consequence the defence barrister withdrew a couple of weeks before the trial, whereupon the employer too withdrew from acting as key witness. 

The local (employment specialist) solicitors, unable to find a replacement barrister, finding they were up against a top London Libel specialist, were left totally exposed in endeavouring to defend their client. 

 

Wife’s client was found guilty and also denied a chance to appeal by the judge. The Jury's decision against wife’s client received prominent National coverage in the Daily and Sunday red top newspapers; she was labelled a Liar and many facial images were published. She was quickly recognised locally as a Pariah and lost her job 

 

After a year she found a similar job, then - after a long series of take-overs -  once again, about 10 years ago. found herself again with the original employer. By now Management had changed and no corporate memory remained.  Ironically surviving some old colleagues confided how embarrassed they’d been by the case - feeling the incident had been as originally identified by the employer !

 

My son a young undergrad at the time of the trial; became a solicitor and subsequently was bizarrely in partnership with one of the survivors of that leading London Libel practice. 
Son simply says the woman (now on the point of retirement) had been badly advised from the outset. She ought to have slapped down a counter Libel claim and gone on the offensive. 

The only one still remaining outraged apparently about all this is RaR  

dh

[Regularity]

2 hours ago, Donw said:

In the case which involved shoplifting the defendant maintained it was a mistake. The jury felt that perhaps it had been a simple mistake and there was no intention to steal.  That would not have been how they felt if that had known of previous convictions.  The evidence was clear the person had left the shop with something in their pocket. How does one prove the intent?  I myself once realised in the supermarket that I had put one item in my pocket when it wasn't in the basket and was able to add it to the items for scanning. What if I hadn't realised it would have been quite accidental.

You still were not duped.

You still had to require on the prosecution building a substantive case, which they failed to do. CCTV footage showing furtive or obviously dishonest activity, such as secreting the object inside a bag. Just putting it in a pocket may not in itself be sufficient. If they were surprised when apprehended, and offered to buy the item, then it has all the appearance of an oversight, regardless of any previous behaviour.

The defendant knew this, and probably opted to trial by jury as a trial by judge only might not have been as accommodating, but this is their right, and if you had been falsely accused you would want to use a jury, too.

Similarly, if you had anything on your record, you would not appreciate it being brought up in court if you were subsequently arrested for a similar or different offence.

A fundamental principle of our legal system is that the defendant has to prove nothing, other than to refute the arguments put forward by the prosecution (i.e. provide an alibi).

[jcredfer]

Re RaR.....

 

I wonder how many cases have had to end in similar fashion, because the defence sent a minesweeper out to rescue the defendant, only to find that the accuser had the money to send a battleship and the case abandoned.

 

Julian

 

Edited March 28, 2020 by jcredfer
Identify what is replied to

[Donw]

3 hours ago, Edwardian said:

My recollections of the study of criminal law are dim, however ...

 

Generally previous convictions can only be disclosed to rebut an assertion of "previous good character".

 

There is a whole complicated (well, complicated by the standards of criminal law/criminal lawyers) set of law about similar fact evidence, i.e. where evidence of prior similar conduct to that of which the accused is accused may be admitted as evidence.  The test, which, with all such tests, is easier to define than to apply, is that the probative value of the evidence must outweigh its prejudicial effect.

 

In Don's situation, it was still incumbent upon the Crown to prove that the accused had committed this particular offence, without the ability simply to infer guilt from previous conduct. For all you know, he did not steal on that last occasion, even if common sense suggests it was overwhelmingly likely that he did. I would worry if we adopted the sort of approach that said "well, he has stolen sheep before, so it doesn't much matter if we end up hanging him for the one he didn't steal".

 

Yes, the prosecutor's code requires the prosecution to be satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction where reasonable  prospect means 50% plus chance of success.  Thus, it does not take much to charge someone, far, far less than what should be required to convict. 

 

So, now, I shall seek relief in criminal justice as it should be ....

 

 

 

 

I do fully accept the argument that Justice should err on the side of innocence  however this can conflict with the public need to believe Justice has been done.  I think this is something the legal profession has overlooked. It would not be a good thing if the public lose faith in our legal system.

Yes the Mikado is wonderful would it be any better or worse than our system overall.

 

 

Don

[Joseph_Pestell]

13 minutes ago, Donw said:

 

 

I do fully accept the argument that Justice should err on the side of innocence  however this can conflict with the public need to believe Justice has been done.  I think this is something the legal profession has overlooked. It would not be a good thing if the public lose faith in our legal system.

Yes the Mikado is wonderful would it be any better or worse than our system overall.

 

 

Don

 

I think that most of the public long since lost confidence in the criminal justice system - partly, it has to be admitted - due to sensationalist reporting in the media. But, all too often, to quote The Mikado, the punishment does not fit the crime (both ways).

 

And, in my own experience, the civil justice system is no better.

[Talltim]

12 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

Morning, Don.  I had expected comments along these lines and it must be very galling to victims and prosecutors when those believed to be guilty get off on a "technicality".

 

No system involving something as fallible as human beings will be perfect, but the default position must be innocence, unless and until shown otherwise. You hit the nail on the head when you said that there were circumstances in which the accused cannot be shown to be innocent.  That is the point, no one has to prove their innocence, thank God; if the Crown cannot prove their guilt, they are innocent. 

 

Implicit in our way of doing things is acceptance that it is better that some guilty people may walk free than that some innocent do not.  Imagine a world in which, say, the prosecution could provide some prima facie, quite probably circumstantial, evidence of guilt and than the burden of proof was upon the accused to show that they were innocent beyond all reasonable doubt!

 

The Scottish verdict is a particularly nasty way of undermining the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'; it says "we could not prove your guilt, but we can still deny your innocence".  It's a repugnant hangover and goodness knows why it has proved so resistant to reform. 

There are laws which presume guilt unless proved otherwise, such a speeding and railway ticketing. (Are they called strict liability?)

Edited March 28, 2020 by Talltim

[jcredfer]

27 minutes ago, Talltim said:

There are laws which presume guilt unless proved otherwise, such a speeding and railway ticketing

 

No they don't, both of the allegations you mention require evidence of proof.  If someone wishes to be found not guilty, to a speed camera, or lack of valid ticket they need to provide evidence that the substantive evidence already presented is not true.

 

Julian

 

Edited March 28, 2020 by jcredfer

[monkeysarefun]

On 28/03/2020 at 05:58, Edwardian said:

 

CMOT Dibbler is alive and well and living in Oz!

Theres Australian meat pies, then theres Australian Northern Territory meat pies..

 

 

And yes, they taste like chicken.

[monkeysarefun]

20 hours ago, sem34090 said:

I think that age matters relatively little when it comes to music. I suppose you're right about expectations though - The way I generally dress probably means that my music tastes aren't all that surprising but if I were to dress as per most people my age I suppose they would be. I don't think I've ever listened, by choice, to what I'm 'supposed' to listen to and have never understood why some people deem that to be wrong.

 

(For the record I generally hover somewhere vaguely between about 1930 and 1955 in terms of fashion, and my music tastes sort of match, with masses of exceptions which incorporate stuff from the 16th Century and up to the 1980s in a select few cases.)

 

Many  TV advertisements around Christmas here feature 'gift ideas for Grandad' which will often be a CD of say Vera Lynne or The Andrews Sisters or similar. 

 

SInce most grandads these days would probably have been stoned at Grateful Dead concerts or protesting Australias entry into Viernam, if not actually  IN the jungles of Vietnam, I just assume that we get to a 'certain' age and suddenly  an undicovered love of  a singalong of "Roll Out The Barrel"  and other Blitz classics kicks in.

[sem34090]

For me that certain age was about six then...

[brianusa]

For all intents and purposes, music ended when rock 'n roll came on the scene.  I was raised on wartime music, big band, show tunes and fifties pop.  Obviously some pleasant music has been written over the years but its has been overshadowed by the hip hop generation.

      Brian.

[Donw]

I presume the Camera shot for speeding would have to be produced if you refused to accept it was your car, no doubt you could get a much stiffer penalty if your are wrong. Of course there is the issue of who  is driving and those notorious cases of other people taking the blame on your behalf. It has destroyed at least one MPs career. This shows very much the fickleness of the public the hypocracy of those who speed excessively and would be willing to lie to avoid taking their punishment if caught compared to the calls for really harsh penalties when someone is hurt in an accident.

 

Don 

[monkeysarefun]

1 hour ago, brianusa said:

For all intents and purposes, music ended when rock 'n roll came on the scene.  I was raised on wartime music, big band, show tunes and fifties pop.  Obviously some pleasant music has been written over the years but its has been overshadowed by the hip hop generation.

      Brian.

Hey, you're my dad!

[Malcolm 0-6-0]

3 hours ago, monkeysarefun said:

 

Many  TV advertisements around Christmas here feature 'gift ideas for Grandad' which will often be a CD of say Vera Lynne or The Andrews Sisters or similar. 

 

SInce most grandads these days would probably have been stoned at Grateful Dead concerts or protesting Australias entry into Viernam, if not actually  IN the jungles of Vietnam, I just assume that we get to a 'certain' age and suddenly  an undiscovered love of  a singalong of "Roll Out The Barrel"  and other Blitz classics kicks in.

 

Well as a bloke in their 70s I can say that I was raised in the cultural sense not on Vera Lynn classics but on rock and roll.  As I've grown older my tastes now centre largely on what is loosely termed classics, Delta blues and the rich tapestry of what is generally known as world music. Popular music as in "pop" doesn't really figure at all, while the thought of being trapped in some retirement home listening to Vera Lynn fills me with a desire to commit suicide. I want to go out to the strains of Mick and the Stones singing Street Fighting Man or Brown Sugar. 

Edited March 29, 2020 by Malcolm 0-6-0