Attacked by security guard - police blaming me!
Discussion
Roman Rhodes said:
Petrus1983 said:
Seems like moderators have taken all the links to the crowd funding page down - so now you have to go there and search for Milkround Defence Fund to find it.
Fools will always find a way to be parted from their money.The poor chap who passed recently from Cancer had a crowdfunding page set up. This was left up.
Why not this one? I think MR has been through it and if someone wants to donate that's their choice.
Maybe they need proof he is real.
I don't think he ever mentioned which court it was in or where the supermarket was, but I think I recognise the supermarket from the CCTV and there was a 2 hour delay affecting most of the routes to the nearest magistrate court to me that day, so I think I know where it was, but then a Russian troll factory also has access to Google maps traffic so could just be really good at making stuff up.
I don't think he ever mentioned which court it was in or where the supermarket was, but I think I recognise the supermarket from the CCTV and there was a 2 hour delay affecting most of the routes to the nearest magistrate court to me that day, so I think I know where it was, but then a Russian troll factory also has access to Google maps traffic so could just be really good at making stuff up.
ging84 said:
Flumpo said:
I’ve seen nearly every episode of diagnoses murder at least twice.
The key cross examination techniques I picked up was do the cross examination one on one. No one else there. Then when they admit it, it turns out your police officer son was hiding and could hear. Check mate security guard. Check mate.
You should watch law and order, it has a disclaimer with dramatic music playing at the beginning so it must be super realistic.The key cross examination techniques I picked up was do the cross examination one on one. No one else there. Then when they admit it, it turns out your police officer son was hiding and could hear. Check mate security guard. Check mate.
Thesprucegoose said:
I've not seen any legal experts actually comment on the validity of the case yet now the talk about an appeal, but no mention that the penalty and sentence can be increased.
janesmith1950 said:
...
If you lose, you're on the hook for both your own and some prosecution costs. Your sentence may be increased if found guilty again.
....
If you lose, you're on the hook for both your own and some prosecution costs. Your sentence may be increased if found guilty again.
....
I have not followed the thread closely but the case appears to turn on the evidence and may have been an example of six of one and half a dozen of another. The OP made a false economy by not arranging before the trial to be represented by a specific advocate that the OP had confidence in. I am not knocking solicitors as many are very good in court, but the case maybe warranted a barrister with at least a couple of years of court experience. Such a barrister would not have been very expensive.
Advocacy is like flying, or skiing, or cooking, or fixing cars. The only way to become a good advocate is by doing advocacy. Flying hours matter. Barristers tend on average to be better advocates than many but not all solicitors because barristers tend to do more advocacy. Junior criminal barristers tend to be in court almost every day. Not all are experts. You get what you pay for.
An appeal to the Crown Court is a rehearing. It is another roll of the dice. A better presented case might produce a better outcome, but as noted above there is also a risk of a heavier sentence.
I do not know enough of the facts to advise whether an appeal would be a good idea. Nor in truth does anyone else here who is not the OP.
As for counsel, my friend Gurprit has now given up crime and is too expensive for the case anyway. I will ask a criminal silk whom I know to recommend a sprog from her Chambers. Jacob Gifford Head remains a good choice and is not too expensive.
To see how a cross examination should be done watch Emily Maitlis versus Prince Andrew or Barry Schrenk versus Detective Furman.
Advocacy is like flying, or skiing, or cooking, or fixing cars. The only way to become a good advocate is by doing advocacy. Flying hours matter. Barristers tend on average to be better advocates than many but not all solicitors because barristers tend to do more advocacy. Junior criminal barristers tend to be in court almost every day. Not all are experts. You get what you pay for.
An appeal to the Crown Court is a rehearing. It is another roll of the dice. A better presented case might produce a better outcome, but as noted above there is also a risk of a heavier sentence.
I do not know enough of the facts to advise whether an appeal would be a good idea. Nor in truth does anyone else here who is not the OP.
As for counsel, my friend Gurprit has now given up crime and is too expensive for the case anyway. I will ask a criminal silk whom I know to recommend a sprog from her Chambers. Jacob Gifford Head remains a good choice and is not too expensive.
To see how a cross examination should be done watch Emily Maitlis versus Prince Andrew or Barry Schrenk versus Detective Furman.
I wonder if this case would have been looked at differently had Milk round had a mental health assessment and been given a diagnosis, and wonder if it could be relevant to an appeal.
Because to me right from the beginning this thread has had autistic spectrum disorder written all over it.
Because to me right from the beginning this thread has had autistic spectrum disorder written all over it.
ging84 said:
I wonder if this case would have been looked at differently had Milk round had a mental health assessment and been given a diagnosis, and wonder if it could be relevant to an appeal.
Because to me right from the beginning this thread has had autistic spectrum disorder written all over it.
Even if that were the case - why would it affect the decision if it was obtained after the event? The court has already determined that the guard did nothing wrong. Ignoring whether that was correct considering the evidence - the guard did not, and could not have known that MR was autistic if he didn't either, and only found out afterwards. Therefore, he couldn't possibly have changed his behaviour because of MR's autism (in the hypothetical suggestion that he is, which is a bit of a curve ball anyway). Because to me right from the beginning this thread has had autistic spectrum disorder written all over it.
If he had some card / lanyard / whatever indicating he was at the time, then perhaps that would be relevant.
(I know zero about the law, so everything I said may be garbage)
davek_964 said:
Even if that were the case - why would it affect the decision if it was obtained after the event? The court has already determined that the guard did nothing wrong. Ignoring whether that was correct considering the evidence - the guard did not, and could not have known that MR was autistic if he didn't either, and only found out afterwards. Therefore, he couldn't possibly have changed his behaviour because of MR's autism (in the hypothetical suggestion that he is, which is a bit of a curve ball anyway).
If he had some card / lanyard / whatever indicating he was at the time, then perhaps that would be relevant.
(I know zero about the law, so everything I said may be garbage)
+1 If he had some card / lanyard / whatever indicating he was at the time, then perhaps that would be relevant.
(I know zero about the law, so everything I said may be garbage)
I don’t think you can just play an autism/Asperger/spectrum card and expect matters of fact to change.
My belief from the start really is that this has been a hugely overdramatic thing with shades of Freeman on the Land about it. I’ll never understand the instant offence reaction to being asked about a receipt, and nothing I’ve read has convinced me that it’s an appropriate reaction in any situation. The entire matter could’ve been resolved in a couple of minutes, and is patently the moderate course of action, and this thread wouldn’t exist.
I think an appeal is likely to be further prolonging of an event that should never have got to this extreme outcome in the first place.
I think most normal people would have just said, "here's my receipt," or, "I didn't actually get a receipt but I paid at this till, is there anyway your system can show the last transaction as it will show these goods."
Dragging it out from April until December (granted, does seem the courts are slow) and then even considering an appeal after all of this... Bonkers.
Dragging it out from April until December (granted, does seem the courts are slow) and then even considering an appeal after all of this... Bonkers.
XCP said:
I thought the golden rule was 'never ask a question that you don't know the answer to'.
Seems to work on Judge Judy anyway.
A guideline. A good guideline. Not a rule. Sometimes you use your judgment and take a calculated risk. Cross examination is a dark art, not a science. It cannot be learned from books.Seems to work on Judge Judy anyway.
BrabusMog said:
I think most normal people would have just said, "here's my receipt," or, "I didn't actually get a receipt but I paid at this till, is there anyway your system can show the last transaction as it will show these goods."
Dragging it out from April until December (granted, does seem the courts are slow) and then even considering an appeal after all of this... Bonkers.
Well this is it exactly. I’ve walked out of a supermarket before and set the alarm off because they hadn’t removed a security tag or whatever, and I didn’t explode at the perceived slight that I might be stealing, I’ve just spoken with whoever has come to see me and dealt with the matter like adults - both of us accepting that it’s an uncomfortable situation for me appearing to be shoplifting, and for them to have to deal with me without trying to cause offence etc.Dragging it out from April until December (granted, does seem the courts are slow) and then even considering an appeal after all of this... Bonkers.
In situations where you can resolve the problem by taking 2 minutes out of your day, and just accepting that you’re not being profiled, or targeted, and that your character hasn’t been besmirched, surely that’s a better outcome than months of litigation.
davek_964 said:
Even if that were the case - why would it affect the decision if it was obtained after the event? The court has already determined that the guard did nothing wrong. Ignoring whether that was correct considering the evidence - the guard did not, and could not have known that MR was autistic if he didn't either, and only found out afterwards. Therefore, he couldn't possibly have changed his behaviour because of MR's autism (in the hypothetical suggestion that he is, which is a bit of a curve ball anyway).
If he had some card / lanyard / whatever indicating he was at the time, then perhaps that would be relevant.
(I know zero about the law, so everything I said may be garbage)
One of the things that was mentioned was the credibility of milk round and his wife Vs the other witness, I would say it could have affected that.If he had some card / lanyard / whatever indicating he was at the time, then perhaps that would be relevant.
(I know zero about the law, so everything I said may be garbage)
Breadvan72 said:
XCP said:
I thought the golden rule was 'never ask a question that you don't know the answer to'.
Seems to work on Judge Judy anyway.
A guideline. A good guideline. Not a rule. Sometimes you use your judgment and take a calculated risk. Cross examination is a dark art, not a science. It cannot be learned from books.Seems to work on Judge Judy anyway.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff