 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
He was charged with affray, not assault of any kind. From the CPS website:
It is not enough for the prosecution to prove that unlawful violence has been used. There has to be violence of such a kind that a bystander would fear for his safety. Where the violence is focussed solely and exclusively on the victim, such that it would be incapable of causing a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his safety, then the offence is not made out.
So there you have it, a not guilty verdict does not mean that the jury considered there was no unlawful violence, just that if there was, it was directed solely at the victim.
I do wonder why the prosecution was not for assault, which would seem to have a much greater chance of being successful.
In the eyes of the law though, he's innocent so that's that.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Because it saves time to scoop the pool and charge them all with affray and it's a more serious charge than assault.
It's cost-accountancy justice. When people keep voting for cuts, that's what they get. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Because it saves time to scoop the pool and charge them all with affray and it's a more serious charge than assault.
It's cost-accountancy justice. When people keep voting for cuts, that's what they get."
Can't argue with that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Because it saves time to scoop the pool and charge them all with affray and it's a more serious charge than assault.
It's cost-accountancy justice. When people keep voting for cuts, that's what they get.
Can't argue with that."
Actually, I probably could argue that people vote for cuts in policing, I think it's something that comes as a side effect of What they do actually vote for. But that's a whole other argument, for another time! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"He was charged with affray, not assault of any kind. From the CPS website:
It is not enough for the prosecution to prove that unlawful violence has been used. There has to be violence of such a kind that a bystander would fear for his safety. Where the violence is focussed solely and exclusively on the victim, such that it would be incapable of causing a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his safety, then the offence is not made out.
So there you have it, a not guilty verdict does not mean that the jury considered there was no unlawful violence, just that if there was, it was directed solely at the victim.
I do wonder why the prosecution was not for assault, which would seem to have a much greater chance of being successful.
In the eyes of the law though, he's innocent so that's that.
"
there was actually a specific reporting restriction on this case that wasn't told before....
the CPS on the day the trial started wanted to add 2 charges of assault causing actual bodily harm........ but the judge said it was too late at that stage |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"He was charged with affray, not assault of any kind. From the CPS website:
It is not enough for the prosecution to prove that unlawful violence has been used. There has to be violence of such a kind that a bystander would fear for his safety. Where the violence is focussed solely and exclusively on the victim, such that it would be incapable of causing a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his safety, then the offence is not made out.
So there you have it, a not guilty verdict does not mean that the jury considered there was no unlawful violence, just that if there was, it was directed solely at the victim.
I do wonder why the prosecution was not for assault, which would seem to have a much greater chance of being successful.
In the eyes of the law though, he's innocent so that's that.
there was actually a specific reporting restriction on this case that wasn't told before....
the CPS on the day the trial started wanted to add 2 charges of assault causing actual bodily harm........ but the judge said it was too late at that stage"
I didn't know that, but sounds fair enough. They had months to prepare their case, they can't be moving the goalposts at that late stage |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
As I said on the other thread we have a justice system in this country...
It consists of trial by a jury if our peers who listen to all the evidence and come to a conclusion.
That conclusion was not guilty.
If you were in his shoes OP and had been found not guilty would you appreciate your actions in ignoring the justice system in favour of your own prejudices.
Ffs enough threads on this already.
He's been found not guilty. Give the guy a break.
Btw cricket .....I'm not a fan |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
