Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2023 14:46:28 GMT
It is contempt to publish on any kind of public forum or in the media, material likely to prejudice a fair trial, like for example stating that someone is guilty when in fact that has yet to be determined. Those are two different things to my mind I am struggling to see how a jury would be swayed overly by someone offering the simple opinion that someone committed the crime in question. In their deliberations and the court's proceedings, the jury are going to have to hear many such opinions. For instance, every time the prosecutor speaks to them, he is likely to tell them (or at least imply) that the accused committed the crime. If you were to start widely publicising facts or distortions that the court ordered kept from jury, that might be a different matter. Squeezed doesn't even feel he directly offered such an opinion. Listing someone on trial for murder alongside convicted murderers as an example of evil murderers is clearly de facto saying that she is guilty. If any newspaper did the same thing theyd be hauled over the coals. TSM won't be of course because of the relative insignificance of this site and anyone on it. In all probability no one remotely connected to the trial has even been here to see anything so its a case of no harm done. I do though share your doubts that any jury would be swayed by someone like TSM posting somewhere like this. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jan 21, 2023 15:23:57 GMT
Someone convicted of serial rapes on the basis of DNA evidence linking them to multiple women, should be given a whole life sentence. Especially if they had been a serving Police Officer abusing their position.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2023 15:46:04 GMT
Someone convicted of serial rapes on the basis of DNA evidence linking them to multiple women, should be given a whole life sentence. Especially if they had been a serving Police Officer abusing their position. Agreed. 100%. I'm appalled at this case. It smacks of a corporate cover-up because his colleagues must have know. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jan 21, 2023 16:06:58 GMT
Those are two different things to my mind I am struggling to see how a jury would be swayed overly by someone offering the simple opinion that someone committed the crime in question. In their deliberations and the court's proceedings, the jury are going to have to hear many such opinions. For instance, every time the prosecutor speaks to them, he is likely to tell them (or at least imply) that the accused committed the crime. If you were to start widely publicising facts or distortions that the court ordered kept from jury, that might be a different matter. Squeezed doesn't even feel he directly offered such an opinion. Listing someone on trial for murder alongside convicted murderers as an example of evil murderers is clearly de facto saying that she is guilty. I don't agree this amounts to contempt of court |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jan 21, 2023 16:49:53 GMT
...I am struggling to see how a jury would be swayed overly by someone offering the simple opinion that someone committed the crime in question. In their deliberations and the court's proceedings, the jury are going to have to hear many such opinions. For instance, every time the prosecutor speaks to them, he is likely to tell them (or at least imply) that the accused committed the crime. If you were to start widely publicising facts or distortions that the court ordered kept from jury, that might be a different matter... Exactly. The whole basis of any prosecution is the allegation that the defendent is guilty. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jan 21, 2023 16:50:56 GMT
Listing someone on trial for murder alongside convicted murderers as an example of evil murderers is clearly de facto saying that she is guilty. I don't agree this amounts to contempt of court
It doesn't.  |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 21, 2023 17:23:36 GMT
I don't agree this amounts to contempt of court
It doesn't. Gov.UK says that a person might be in contempt of court if he says that 'a person is innocent or guilty' on social media. I doubt there would be any incentive to prosecute, though. There must be thousands of incidents daily. www.gov.uk/contempt-of-court |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jan 21, 2023 17:33:45 GMT
...I am struggling to see how a jury would be swayed overly by someone offering the simple opinion that someone committed the crime in question. In their deliberations and the court's proceedings, the jury are going to have to hear many such opinions. For instance, every time the prosecutor speaks to them, he is likely to tell them (or at least imply) that the accused committed the crime. If you were to start widely publicising facts or distortions that the court ordered kept from jury, that might be a different matter... Exactly. The whole basis of any prosecution is the allegation that the defendent is guilty. I would put it a bit more strongly - typically the guilt of the defendant is asserted as a fact by the prosecution |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 21, 2023 17:35:36 GMT
Exactly. The whole basis of any prosecution is the allegation that the defendent is guilty. I would go even further - typically the guilt of the defendant is asserted as a fact by the prosecution The prosecution is making the assertion at the behest of the court, so how could it be in contempt of court? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jan 21, 2023 17:37:13 GMT
I would go even further - typically the guilt of the defendant is asserted as a fact by the prosecution The prosecution is making the assertion at the behest of the court, so how could it be in contempt of court? But surely, there must be a chance that such as an assertion might sway the jury..? Or we assuming the Jury is competent enough to see such an assertion for what it is? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 21, 2023 17:38:42 GMT
The prosecution is making the assertion at the behest of the court, so how could it be in contempt of court? But surely, there must be a chance that such as an assertion might sway the jury.. That's for you to take up with the law makers. According to Gov.UK it might be contempt of court to comment on someone's innocent or guilt on social media. Isn't that the issue? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jan 21, 2023 17:39:22 GMT
It doesn't. Gov.UK says that a person might be in contempt of court if he says that 'a person is innocent or guilty' on social media. I doubt there would be any incentive to prosecute, though. There must be thousands of incidents daily. www.gov.uk/contempt-of-courtmight |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 21, 2023 17:40:47 GMT
Gov.UK says that a person might be in contempt of court if he says that 'a person is innocent or guilty' on social media. I doubt there would be any incentive to prosecute, though. There must be thousands of incidents daily. www.gov.uk/contempt-of-courtmight Yes, might. So what? If there is no precedent, no-one can say definitively that it is or is not a contempt of court. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jan 21, 2023 17:52:08 GMT
Yes, might. So what? If there is no precedent, no-one can say definitively that it is or is not a contempt of court. So what? If that were the whole matter, the word might would not be needed. You might be in contempt of court if you mention the name of someone connected with the case. That doesn't mean the same thing as, 'you are in contempt of court if you mention the name of somebody connected with case.' |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jan 21, 2023 18:12:45 GMT
But surely, there must be a chance that such as an assertion might sway the jury.. That's for you to take up with the law makers. According to Gov.UK it might be contempt of court to comment on someone's innocent or guilt on social media. Isn't that the issue? Phew, it's a good job you're here Whoiney - Shrieky almost had me worried for a second there.  |
|
