Absurd injustice
Discussion
Martin4x4 said:
The reports say he produced the letter at the trian, so it was not 'unseen' and it was proven to be false. He's prejudiced himself so I cannot consider it just to still gain a benefit from perverting the system.
Yes, it appears during the trial the letter was found to be false and therefore he committed several additional serious offences, so the original trial was abandoned. He was convicted of those additional offences and was to be re-tried over the original rape. It so happened the complainant then didn't want to go through a second trial, so he got lucky. That's out of the control of the legal system. Why do you assume he received a benefit? Why have you failed to consider that he never have been convicted of the rape, and the only convictions and prison time he spent was his own-doing? That could easily be the case.
Martin4x4 said:
I userstand the victims evidence can still be used against him which is why I think it is absurd to abandon the trial and drop the charges.
Why do you think that? You obviously have no idea of the evidential strength of the case unless you've read the prosecution file. There may have been (and probably wasn't given the discontinuance) no realistic prospect of conviction in the absence of the complainant. It's hardly absurd to stick to consistent legal principles, is it? Martin4x4 said:
The 18 months is significantly less than a rapist should expect.
He wasn't convicted of rape. You need to separate what he was on trial for, and what he was going on a second trial for, and what he was convicted of. Martin4x4 said:
This opens the flood gates for all sorts of abuses to further weaken justice.
That's a 'thin end of the wedge' fallacy comment, if I ever heard one.
Breadvan72 said:
The transcripts of Crown Court trials are not usually published, as they turn on their own facts and publishing reports of every one of them would cost too much.
In this case it is probable that the trial could not proceed because the jury had become aware that the defendant had produced a false exculpatory letter. This prejudiced a fair trial on the rape charge itself.
We cannot simply assume that the defendant was guilty of rape. He may well have been, but sometimes dumb people have a real defence but try to improve on it.
Unfortunatly, but it does under line a significant grievance I have with the criminal justice sytem. It seems incapably of trusting juries with all the evidence, often seeing fit to witholding facts because the 'plebs' cannot be trusted to make the right decisions. infantilise juries and we get whimsical decisions.In this case it is probable that the trial could not proceed because the jury had become aware that the defendant had produced a false exculpatory letter. This prejudiced a fair trial on the rape charge itself.
We cannot simply assume that the defendant was guilty of rape. He may well have been, but sometimes dumb people have a real defence but try to improve on it.
Martin4x4 said:
Unfortunatly, but it does under line a significant grievance I have with the criminal justice sytem. It seems incapably of trusting juries with all the evidence, often seeing fit to witholding facts because the 'plebs' cannot be trusted to make the right decisions. infantilise juries and we get whimsical decisions.
You have said that, because he sent those letters, you think the defendant was guilty of rape. That seems to me like a good demonstration of why juries are not "trust[ed]...with all the evidence".La Liga said:
Why do you assume he received a benefit? Why have you failed to consider that he never have been convicted of the rape, and the only convictions and prison time he spent was his own-doing? That could easily be the case.
I would consider that self evident, 18 months for PCOJ vs several years in jail as hated sex offender. I doubt that he would fake the letter if innocent, I consider that an unreasonable doubt.Martin4x4 said:
I userstand the victims evidence can still be used against him which is why I think it is absurd to abandon the trial and drop the charges.
I accidently posted before I had finished my copy edit and I reworded this in my OP to better express what I meant.La Liga said:
You obviously have no idea of the evidential strength of the case unless you've read the prosecution file. There may have been (and probably wasn't given the discontinuance) no realistic prospect of conviction in the absence of the complainant. It's hardly absurd to stick to consistent legal principles, is it?
You are right, which is why I think Juries should get the full facts to be able to make their decisions.Martin4x4 said:
This opens the flood gates for all sorts of abuses to further weaken justice.
That's a 'thin end of the wedge' fallacy comment, if I ever heard one.I fundamentally disagree it is no fallacy. The 'slippery slope' occurs in all walks of life again and again.
SamHH said:
You have said that, because he sent those letters, you think the defendant was guilty of rape. That seems to me like a good demonstration of why juries are not "trust[ed]...with all the evidence".
No, A does follow B. I think he is likely to be guilty and likely to be found guilty for my reasons stated, but the final decision should be in the hands of a jury that has heard the full facts as possible.Martin4x4 said:
I would consider that self evident, 18 months for PCOJ vs several years in jail as hated sex offender. I doubt that he would fake the letter if innocent, I consider that an unreasonable doubt.
It's not "vs" - they weren't mutually exclusive events or one in place of the other. He was due to be re-tried for the original rape charge. He could have ended up with both convictions and a longer total sentence because of his actions. If he 'got away' with anything it's not the fault of the justice system. If it's found during a trial that key bit of evidence has been falsified then naturally the circumstances surrounding that will more often than not need to be established. It's also likely the sum total of whatever evidence he has provided will need to be re-examined. This isn't appropriate mid-trial. How much time do you think this takes? That's why a first trial may be abandoned so the investigation into the falsified evidence can be undertaken and concluded (which it was here). The trial for the original offence can begin again, which was what was going to occur with the correct application of evidential admissibility.
Him faking the letter doesn't mean he was guilty of the rape or would be found guilty.
Martin4x4 said:
You are right, which is why I think Juries should get the full facts to be able to make their decisions.
How can they get the full facts if the victim doesn't wish to give evidence? It wasn't a case of evidence being excluded, it was that the victim did not wish to give the evidence that appears to have been key to any realistic prospect of conviction. Martin4x4 said:
I fundamentally disagree it is no fallacy. The 'slippery slope' occurs in all walks of life again and again.
Of course it's one. There's no logic at play. Why does one trial with one set of circumstances open up any doors? Has there never been evidence before that during the trial has been found to be falsified? Have trails never been abandoned previously due to this? Has an accused never been found to have perverted the course of justice during a trial, had that one abandoned, been convicted of the PCOJ and then not faced the original trial for whatever reason? Of course it's occurred before. Why didn't the open up the door to carnage? Why is this one different?
Martin4x4 said:
No, A does follow B. I think he is likely to be guilty and likely to be found guilty for my reasons stated, but the final decision should be in the hands of a jury that has heard the full facts as possible.
You've just said that it would be an unreasonable doubt to think that he sent the letters, but was nevertheless innocent of rape. Therefore he must be guilty and you would convict if you were on the jury in the rape trial, no?Breadvan72 said:
If the victim always had to "press charges", then no murder could be prosecuted. The police decide whether to charge, and the CPS decide whether to prosecute. In some rare cases, the Attorney General has to make the decision. Of course, in practice these decisions may be heavily dependent on the willingness of the victim of the offence to provide evidence.
surely it's a case of the evidence available outwith the evidence from the complainants statements and that which would be obtained and tested in in court testimony / cross Although it isn't clear why the trial was abandoned I think that if the defendant fabricates evidence to help his case that is very different to the prosecution introducing such evidence. It may be preferable to continue the trial with a warning to the jury of the danger of giving too much weight to the conduct. Trials aren't abandoned simply because the accused is shown to be a liar. This case does highlight how difficult sex offence cases can be for the criminal justice system.
tenpenceshort said:
My opinion is that it would be a very dangerous thing indeed, to punish the defendant to the level he would otherwise have been following a guilty verdict at trial.
Under normal circumstances I would agree. If the prosecution witness pull out of their own free will - then that is their prerogative.However this is far from a normal case. The defender has intentionally sabotaged the trial via a criminal act - and as such should face very harsh punishment indeed.
Perhaps if the punishment were severe - it would discourage people from sabotaging criminal trials - surely not a bad thing.
I am unsure what exactly you think is "dangerous" about it. You aren't assuming guilt of the crime they were being tried for - they wouldn't be convicted of rape in the absence of a re-trial, that boat has sailed. They would however face a very serious PTCOJ punishment.
I think the world needs to give up on the OP, as he's seemingly incapable of following the process of this.
The trial was abandoned and set to be restarted with the PCOJ charge being in addition.
Scrotey McScrote was tried and found guilty of PCOJ
Victim refused to attend a second rape trial. This was not a result of the letter, this was the result of it being a second trial.
This demonstrates poor resolve on the victim's part, not poor resolve on justice's part. That the victim didn't receive the level of support necessary to pursue the second trial doesn't mean that everyone gets the same thing happening to them, in fact I'd say the odds are stacked that (as has been highlighted several times now) they'd end up with both the rape conviction AND the PCOJ conviction.
For clarity, PCOJ conviction was not in place of his rape conviction. It's piss poor reporting and piss poor understanding of the way this works on your part.
Have you considered writing for the Daily Mail? They like writers to leave out key points for understanding and cause shock and mass hysteria over inaccuracies.
The trial was abandoned and set to be restarted with the PCOJ charge being in addition.
Scrotey McScrote was tried and found guilty of PCOJ
Victim refused to attend a second rape trial. This was not a result of the letter, this was the result of it being a second trial.
This demonstrates poor resolve on the victim's part, not poor resolve on justice's part. That the victim didn't receive the level of support necessary to pursue the second trial doesn't mean that everyone gets the same thing happening to them, in fact I'd say the odds are stacked that (as has been highlighted several times now) they'd end up with both the rape conviction AND the PCOJ conviction.
For clarity, PCOJ conviction was not in place of his rape conviction. It's piss poor reporting and piss poor understanding of the way this works on your part.
Have you considered writing for the Daily Mail? They like writers to leave out key points for understanding and cause shock and mass hysteria over inaccuracies.
I think there are two separate issues here:
1. I fully agree that it was not right to pursue a retrial in the rape offence, due to the victim's lack of resolve (probably in the face of harassment, but whatever). Nor could the original trial have been fair, so it was right to abandon it.
2. The sentence for PCOJ seems astonishingly light. Consider from the CPS page above:
[quote]R v Hall [2007] 2 Cr. App. R. (S) 42
The appellant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. He and others indulged over months in very serious and sustained attempts to threaten and intimidate a 15-year-old girl due to give evidence at his trial for a sexual offence against her. Sentence of seven and a half years imprisonment upheld.
[/quote]
While Hall may have involved more egregious threats of violence, the conduct in this case was otherwise probably comparable and does not justify only one fifth of the sentence.
1. I fully agree that it was not right to pursue a retrial in the rape offence, due to the victim's lack of resolve (probably in the face of harassment, but whatever). Nor could the original trial have been fair, so it was right to abandon it.
2. The sentence for PCOJ seems astonishingly light. Consider from the CPS page above:
[quote]R v Hall [2007] 2 Cr. App. R. (S) 42
The appellant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. He and others indulged over months in very serious and sustained attempts to threaten and intimidate a 15-year-old girl due to give evidence at his trial for a sexual offence against her. Sentence of seven and a half years imprisonment upheld.
[/quote]
While Hall may have involved more egregious threats of violence, the conduct in this case was otherwise probably comparable and does not justify only one fifth of the sentence.
I think there are two separate issues here:
1. I fully agree that it was not right to pursue a retrial in the rape offence, due to the victim's lack of resolve (probably in the face of harassment, but whatever). Nor could the original trial have been fair, so it was right to abandon it.
2. The sentence for PCOJ seems astonishingly light. Consider from the CPS page above:
1. I fully agree that it was not right to pursue a retrial in the rape offence, due to the victim's lack of resolve (probably in the face of harassment, but whatever). Nor could the original trial have been fair, so it was right to abandon it.
2. The sentence for PCOJ seems astonishingly light. Consider from the CPS page above:
CPS]R v Hall [2007 said:
2 Cr. App. R. (S) 42
The appellant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. He and others indulged over months in very serious and sustained attempts to threaten and intimidate a 15-year-old girl due to give evidence at his trial for a sexual offence against her. Sentence of seven and a half years imprisonment upheld.
While Hall may have involved more egregious threats of violence, the conduct in this case was otherwise probably comparable and does not justify only one fifth of the sentence.The appellant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. He and others indulged over months in very serious and sustained attempts to threaten and intimidate a 15-year-old girl due to give evidence at his trial for a sexual offence against her. Sentence of seven and a half years imprisonment upheld.
I see reference to months of sustained efforts. This may have been a factor in the length of sentence issued in that instance, rather than causing confusion around why this case was 'so lenient'.
In all fairness to the leniency based on the very little I've seen, he's forged a letter and had a couple of friends try to talk to her. That's not months of sustained threats of violence.
In all fairness to the leniency based on the very little I've seen, he's forged a letter and had a couple of friends try to talk to her. That's not months of sustained threats of violence.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff