Why do they always plead not guilty
Discussion
Seen this on another thread several days ago and have discussed with others over the holidays
http://www.lbc.co.uk/news/crime-caught-camera/shoc...
The two 'cheeky chaps' have been identified (facebook appears not to be your friend in these circumstances)
Charged and ramanded but plead Not Guilty,
Why do scrotes like these always plead "wasn't me"?
http://www.lbc.co.uk/news/crime-caught-camera/shoc...
The two 'cheeky chaps' have been identified (facebook appears not to be your friend in these circumstances)
Charged and ramanded but plead Not Guilty,
Why do scrotes like these always plead "wasn't me"?
PorkInsider said:
There’s a reasonable chance that the prosecution will screw up somewhere along the line.
I imagine that’s why many people who are caught bang to rights still go with not guilty pleas.
This. The chances of a prosecution screw or of an unwarranted jury acquittal are sufficient to outweigh the discount that they may receive for pleading guilty. Time for a formal system of plea bargains, in my view. I imagine that’s why many people who are caught bang to rights still go with not guilty pleas.
Edited by PorkInsider on Saturday 30th December 20:47
The plea comes after someone is charged so it’s post the ‘no comment’ interview stage. Most ‘no comment’ interviews are either because the police don’t have enough evidence (and there won’t be a charge), or circumstances where the suspect can’t say anything to help themselves so there’s nothing to gain by answering questions.
If the CPS have authorised a charge / continue a prosecution, they judge there to be a realistic prospect of conviction.
Charge / plea / outcome data is all available online if anyone is interested in the actual data.
If the CPS have authorised a charge / continue a prosecution, they judge there to be a realistic prospect of conviction.
Charge / plea / outcome data is all available online if anyone is interested in the actual data.
Thanks for the responses,
I guess even caught red handed the default answer is "din do nuffen - wun't me innit"
But in this case ... CCTV of them before the incident, During the theft & after, (with images clear enough for locals on FB to ID & name them)
I can only assume ... but lets surmise the police have their clothing & bikes that match
I just don't see how scrotes like these claim NG
I guess even caught red handed the default answer is "din do nuffen - wun't me innit"
But in this case ... CCTV of them before the incident, During the theft & after, (with images clear enough for locals on FB to ID & name them)
I can only assume ... but lets surmise the police have their clothing & bikes that match
I just don't see how scrotes like these claim NG
When a case is watertight and going for trial, that's the time to sweat. Often, the only option left to the defence is to attack police behaviour, the procedure or something that to everyone else is of no relevance but might put it in the mind of the jury that there's doubts about the evidence.
How far were you from the offender? Where were you sitting in the van? What was the first thing you saw? These sorts of questions come up after general walk-through ones designed to lull you. It's almost as if they want to signal that the fourth question is the main one.
If they ask for the ID officer to attend a trial it is a sign the defence is struggling. However, one SIO once said that if an ID officer is called to give evidence it's good news as, as long as they make no mistake, the defence will ask for a short adjournment to discuss matters with his client; ie there will be a change of plea.
If the defence asks for all witnesses to attend then they have no defence to the charges. If the offender has no relevant previous history then an individual officer, probably the one with shortest service, will be the one they will go after.
One description contained the description of an identifiable watch the offender was wearing. At the summing-up stage, the defence got the offender to stand up and raise his left hand. No watch, no strap marks = it was obviously a fit up by the police. He was released and went on to try and murder another child.
One that sticks in my mind is three defendants, almost identical evidence, all did it, all three pleaded NG, only two found guilty. Bewildering.
Always worth a try.
How far were you from the offender? Where were you sitting in the van? What was the first thing you saw? These sorts of questions come up after general walk-through ones designed to lull you. It's almost as if they want to signal that the fourth question is the main one.
If they ask for the ID officer to attend a trial it is a sign the defence is struggling. However, one SIO once said that if an ID officer is called to give evidence it's good news as, as long as they make no mistake, the defence will ask for a short adjournment to discuss matters with his client; ie there will be a change of plea.
If the defence asks for all witnesses to attend then they have no defence to the charges. If the offender has no relevant previous history then an individual officer, probably the one with shortest service, will be the one they will go after.
One description contained the description of an identifiable watch the offender was wearing. At the summing-up stage, the defence got the offender to stand up and raise his left hand. No watch, no strap marks = it was obviously a fit up by the police. He was released and went on to try and murder another child.
One that sticks in my mind is three defendants, almost identical evidence, all did it, all three pleaded NG, only two found guilty. Bewildering.
Always worth a try.
T6 vanman said:
Thanks for the responses,
I guess even caught red handed the default answer is "din do nuffen - wun't me innit"
But in this case ... CCTV of them before the incident, During the theft & after, (with images clear enough for locals on FB to ID & name them)
I can only assume ... but lets surmise the police have their clothing & bikes that match
I just don't see how scrotes like these claim NG
Well the CCTV I saw didn't clearly identify the faces behind the hoodies therefore I drew the conclusion the FB "dobbers" recognised the bikes, clothes, general stature etc. or even heard public bragging (unrecorded/posted). In court that could easily be swayed as reasonable grounds for doubt (the threshold for a guilty decision) given anyone could be riding similar/those bikes and clothes. There is a reason scrotes wear similar hoodies and jeans.I guess even caught red handed the default answer is "din do nuffen - wun't me innit"
But in this case ... CCTV of them before the incident, During the theft & after, (with images clear enough for locals on FB to ID & name them)
I can only assume ... but lets surmise the police have their clothing & bikes that match
I just don't see how scrotes like these claim NG
agtlaw said:
Derek Smith said:
When a case is watertight and going for trial...
Probably incompetence from the police not securing convictions in those ‘watertight’ cases. Btw, the correct term for the person in the dock is the defendant. We have a presumption of innocence in this country.
PorkInsider said:
There’s a reasonable chance that the prosecution will screw up somewhere along the line.
There is also a reasonable chance that the jury, despite all the evidence to the contrary, will bring in a verdict of not guilty.So that's two chances that you might get off completely. That's better than no chance if you plead guilty.
Denial seems common amongst criminals, we are seeing the exactly the same thing with the Tramadol Tramp, caught red handed but still denies any wrong doing. I think some of it is learned behaviour, confrontational denial makes some people back down. They've learnt that escalating works for them, until they reach the point it doesn't. Too many unscrupulous lawyers are willing to play along with their lies, to win at any cost.
The court system letting so many off from unreasonable doubt or with suspended sentences re-enforcing this.
Those have been caught and are from scumbag central.
The court system letting so many off from unreasonable doubt or with suspended sentences re-enforcing this.
Those have been caught and are from scumbag central.
agtlaw said:
Probably incompetence from the police not securing convictions in those ‘watertight’ cases.
Btw, the correct term for the person in the dock is the defendant. We have a presumption of innocence in this country.
I think Derek was talking about cases where the issue is identifying the offender.Btw, the correct term for the person in the dock is the defendant. We have a presumption of innocence in this country.
Y'know, someone did a bad thing - an offender, caught on CCTV or whatever - and the issue is have we got the right person.
In such cases it may be wholly appropriate to use the term offender.
I agree with the other poster. Try not to be so patronising.
Especially when you are wrong.
Red 4 said:
I think Derek was talking about cases where the issue is identifying the offender.
Y'know, someone did a bad thing - an offender, caught on CCTV or whatever - and the issue is have we got the right person.
In such cases it may be wholly appropriate to use the term offender.
I agree with the other poster. Try not to be so patronising.
Especially when you are wrong.
Without wishing to win last pedant of 2017 award, Derek was clearly describing the accused. Y'know, someone did a bad thing - an offender, caught on CCTV or whatever - and the issue is have we got the right person.
In such cases it may be wholly appropriate to use the term offender.
I agree with the other poster. Try not to be so patronising.
Especially when you are wrong.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff