Robbery victim "too honest to give evidence"

[hornetrider]

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?Judge_axe...

Her evidence was so good apparently, that the jury would inevitably believe her. So naturally the judge cancelled the trial and let the perp walk.

FFS.

[Parrot of Doom]

I didn't see where the judge said that she was 'too honest'.

What the judge did say was that her testimony was impeccable, but in the end it was her word against his - with no supporting evidence.

You may have a very eloquent liar vs a young innocent lad with poor language skills. We all know juries will judge people on appearance, so perhaps the judge has a point.

If that is the principle that the judge based his decision upon, I have no problem with it.

Edited by Parrot of Doom on Wednesday 14th January 10:10

[hornetrider]

Let's extrapolate that viewpoint through the entire justice system then shall we. Anyone victim who is more eloquent than the perp (probably true in 99% of cases due to social demographics) will not be able to seek redress for the crime through the courts.

Brilliant.

[dwilkie]

Sensationalism from a paper? Never...

I can see the judges point as already mentioned - a Jury is going to believe the testimony of an "upstanding citizen" over a "pikey" if there's no evidence either way. Which means it's an unfair trial.

A few years ago I think it could probably have still gone ahead, but even if it could I'm fairly sure there'd be a clause in the European Human Rights Act (or whatever the correct name for it is) that would stop it.

[Parrot of Doom]

hornetrider said:

Let's extrapolate that viewpoint through the entire justice system then shall we. Anyone supposed victim who is more eloquent than the alleged perpetrator (probably true in 99% of cases due to social demographics due to a complete guess with no supporting evidence on my part) will not be able to seek redress for the alleged crime through the courts.

Brilliant.

Fixed. Not as simple as you might think, is it?

[dwilkie]

Parrot of Doom said:

hornetrider said:

Let's extrapolate that viewpoint through the entire justice system then shall we. Anyone supposed victim who is more eloquent than the alleged perpetrator (probably true in 99% of cases due to social demographics due to a complete guess with no supporting evidence on my part) will not be able to seek redress for the alleged crime through the courts where there is no supporting evidence to the alleged victims claim

Brilliant.

Fixed. Not as simple as you might think, is it?

I think that bit should be there too?

[GKP]

If she were a police officer, would her evidence be dismissed?

[blindswelledrat]

Parrot of Doom said:

hornetrider said:

Let's extrapolate that viewpoint through the entire justice system then shall we. Anyone supposed victim who is more eloquent than the alleged perpetrator (probably true in 99% of cases due to social demographics due to a complete guess with no supporting evidence on my part) will not be able to seek redress for the alleged crime through the courts.

Brilliant.

Fixed. Not as simple as you might think, is it?

I would call that 'twisted' as opposed to 'fixed'.

Anyway-what is that actual law on cases that are words against word?
THe problem with your theory-is that I read that he would have allowed the case had the alleged criminal been of a more upstanding demograph. THus claiming that word against word is a valid case, just not in this instance.
I am a bit confused on this issue.

[dwilkie]

But it would affect the impartiality of the jury (it would certainly affect my impartiality) in this case and therefore the alleged scrote would not get a fair trial (OK, an allegedly fair trial). Which is a fundamental right we have.

I'm surprised if there was no supporting evidence it even got as far as a judge to be honest, I'd have thought CPS would have dropepd it. Did her student not see the guys face? I mean that would be an extra witness and therefore you'd think it would fly.

[chris_w]

So how did the defendant find himself in the line up she picked him out of if there was no evidence? Something must have linked him to the crime for the police to have included him?

[blindswelledrat]

Agree in principle, although I am not convinced that it is actually the law In the version I read the Judge impied that it wasn't. That this case was unique.
Otherwise-why would this even make the papers when the story is merely "Case thrown out because there isn't any evidence"

[blindswelledrat]

chris_w said:

So how did the defendant find himself in the line up she picked him out of if there was no evidence? Something must have linked him to the crime for the police to have included him?

Not neccesarily evidence though. Police have a decent knowledge of local scum so with a semi-description from the witness-they will already have a good idea who did it.

[The Black Duke]

GKP said:

If she were a police officer, would her evidence be dismissed?

Maybe. Back in 1997 when I passed my test I was stopped for speeding by a lone traffic copper in an Omega. He insisted I was doing 96mph in a 1.4 Astra. I insisted I wasn't. I said at tops I was driving 65mph as that was my first time on the motorway. I also mentioned (which was true) that an identical car had gone past less than a minute before and this was the vehicle that was speeding. The clerk instructed the magistrate to the lack of evidence and I was free to go.

So yes if its one person against another sometimes they don't take the police officers word.