|
|
Post by Handyman on Feb 20, 2023 15:20:16 GMT
The Court decides what evidence is admissible or inadmissible and can be put before the Jury , in this case the Court ruled that his occupation was something the Jury did not need to know in order that he had a fair trial as it may have unduly influenced them I don't have court records, but the Mail report states:
Judge Robert Bright QC dismissed the application, ruling Longden-Thurgood's position a police officer was part of the reason the woman trusted him enough to invite him to her home so the jury should hear it.
'It's the case that he said he was a police officer and that he would protect her', the judge said. He also said there was an 'imbalance of power' in the incident due to the circumstances.
And you hope I never have to sit on a jury and understand things...
You are quite right his applications to two Courts first one was stopped due to some of the Jury were rejected by the second Court I got that bit wrong, however his occupation has no bearing on what allegedly happened she willing invited him to her home, she claimed he raped her, he claimed he did not she consented, the strength of evidence is what proves guilt or not , his occupation had nothing to do with guilt or innocence , the Jury could not reach a verdict so not guilty |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Feb 20, 2023 16:27:13 GMT
I don't have court records, but the Mail report states:
Judge Robert Bright QC dismissed the application, ruling Longden-Thurgood's position a police officer was part of the reason the woman trusted him enough to invite him to her home so the jury should hear it.
'It's the case that he said he was a police officer and that he would protect her', the judge said. He also said there was an 'imbalance of power' in the incident due to the circumstances.
And you hope I never have to sit on a jury and understand things...
You are quite right his applications to two Courts first one was stopped due to some of the Jury were rejected by the second Court I got that bit wrong, however his occupation has no bearing on what allegedly happened she willing invited him to her home, she claimed he raped her, he claimed he did not she consented, the strength of evidence is what proves guilt or not , his occupation had nothing to do with guilt or innocence , the Jury could not reach a verdict so not guilty Again, you miss the reported ruling by the judge: Judge Robert Bright QC dismissed the application, ruling Longden-Thurgood's position a police officer was part of the reason the woman trusted him enough to invite him to her home so the jury should hear it. The Mail says one trial collapsed due to illness, and the second because the jury could not reach a decision — no evidence either way was strong enough to get the jury to make a decision or perhaps more accurately, not guilty or guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Now the complainant doesn’t want to give evidence at another trial and the charges are dropped. I’m passing no opinion on, or questioning the behaviour of, either the complainant or the accused during their association… |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Feb 20, 2023 16:32:18 GMT
You are quite right his applications to two Courts first one was stopped due to some of the Jury were rejected by the second Court I got that bit wrong, however his occupation has no bearing on what allegedly happened she willing invited him to her home, she claimed he raped her, he claimed he did not she consented, the strength of evidence is what proves guilt or not , his occupation had nothing to do with guilt or innocence , the Jury could not reach a verdict so not guilty Again, you miss the reported ruling by the judge: Judge Robert Bright QC dismissed the application, ruling Longden-Thurgood's position a police officer was part of the reason the woman trusted him enough to invite him to her home so the jury should hear it. The Mail says one trial collapsed due to illness, and the second because the jury could not reach a decision — no evidence either way was strong enough to get the jury to make a decision or perhaps more accurately, not guilty or guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Now the complainant doesn’t want to give evidence at another trial and the charges are dropped. I’m passing no opinion on, or questioning the behaviour of, either the complainant or the accused during their association… You missed the bit were I told you I was wrong on his applications, I now know his applications were rejected by the Court , the fact still remains he is not guilty as I stated in Rape trials it often is just one person word against the other, a number of men have been sent to Prison for Rape wrongly convicted when women have lied about being raped |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Feb 20, 2023 16:53:38 GMT
Again, you miss the reported ruling by the judge: Judge Robert Bright QC dismissed the application, ruling Longden-Thurgood's position a police officer was part of the reason the woman trusted him enough to invite him to her home so the jury should hear it. The Mail says one trial collapsed due to illness, and the second because the jury could not reach a decision — no evidence either way was strong enough to get the jury to make a decision or perhaps more accurately, not guilty or guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Now the complainant doesn’t want to give evidence at another trial and the charges are dropped. I’m passing no opinion on, or questioning the behaviour of, either the complainant or the accused during their association… You missed the bit were I told you I was wrong on his applications, I now know his applications were rejected by the Court , the fact still remains he is not guilty as I stated in Rape trials it often is just one person word against the other, a number of men have been sent to Prison for Rape wrongly convicted when women have lied about being raped I disagree. The judge said the police officer’s occupation was an important factor and that the jury should hear it. I agree with you second point about men being wrongly sent to prison for rape, though I can’t recall any such cases. But I’m willing to bet far more men get away with rape than are even charged — not that one is meant to balance out the other… |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Feb 20, 2023 17:02:40 GMT
I disagree. The judge said the police officer’s occupation was an important factor and that the jury should hear it... Then the judge was quite clearly wrong. Either the defendent raped the woman or he didn't. His occupation has no bearing on that. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Feb 20, 2023 17:39:25 GMT
I disagree. The judge said the police officer’s occupation was an important factor and that the jury should hear it... Then the judge was quite clearly wrong. Either the defendent raped the woman or he didn't. His occupation has no bearing on that. He could have used his position as a police officer to get into the complainants knickers — the judge considered it a possibility and allowed what the officer said about uniforms and what the officer saw as his beneficial attributes as a police officer, to be used in evidence. It was up to the jury to decide. Both times. While recognising that I’m drawing all my info on this case from a report in the Mail, I’m more inclined to use the reported guidance of the judge than the opinion of a poster on here… |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Feb 20, 2023 18:04:54 GMT
...I’m more inclined to use the reported guidance of the judge than the opinion of a poster on here… And, in general, you would be wise to do so. But let's look at this logically: Sex was either consensual or it was not. And the parties' occupations are irrelevant to that. Okay, there are circumstances where it might be relevant, for example if she really hated cops she may have claimed that she would never have consented if she'd known. But that's not the case: She already knew that he was a police officer before they met. And her claim is that she did not consent regardless of his occupation. Therefore it was irrelevant to the issue of consent and the only potential effect of disclosure would be to prejudice the jury. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Feb 20, 2023 19:19:03 GMT
You missed the bit were I told you I was wrong on his applications, I now know his applications were rejected by the Court , the fact still remains he is not guilty as I stated in Rape trials it often is just one person word against the other, a number of men have been sent to Prison for Rape wrongly convicted when women have lied about being raped I disagree. The judge said the police officer’s occupation was an important factor and that the jury should hear it. I agree with you second point about men being wrongly sent to prison for rape, though I can’t recall any such cases. But I’m willing to bet far more men get away with rape than are even charged — not that one is meant to balance out the other… As I stated earlier the Court ( Judge) decides what is admissible or inadmissible to be put before the Jury, I think he made a wrong decision. As for false accusations or Rape made against men there have been a number of them reported over the years , this one really hit the headlines she eventually got 10 years inside www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-47738892 |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Feb 21, 2023 17:55:36 GMT
...I’m more inclined to use the reported guidance of the judge than the opinion of a poster on here… And, in general, you would be wise to do so. But let's look at this logically: Sex was either consensual or it was not. And the parties' occupations are irrelevant to that. Okay, there are circumstances where it might be relevant, for example if she really hated cops she may have claimed that she would never have consented if she'd known. But that's not the case: She already knew that he was a police officer before they met. And her claim is that she did not consent regardless of his occupation. Therefore it was irrelevant to the issue of consent and the only potential effect of disclosure would be to prejudice the jury. Judge Robert Bright QC dismissed the application [that the accused's occupation should be kept secret from the jury], ruling Longden-Thurgood's position a police officer was part of the reason the woman trusted him enough to invite him to her home so the jury should hear it.
From the Mail's report...
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Feb 21, 2023 18:29:34 GMT
If her consent were conditional upon his occupation (and I don't know if that's a thing in law) then she may have a point. However:
A) She knew his occupation in advance.
B) She claimed that she did not consent.
Therefore his occupation is irrelevant.
The test in Sang weighed prejudicial effect against probative value. This means that section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 can exclude evidence if the judge “is of the opinion that its prejudicial effect on the jury was likely to outweigh its probative value”
Criminal Justice Act 2003
Section 126: Court's general discretion to exclude evidence
...Subsection (2) preserves both the existing common law power for the court to exclude evidence where its prejudicial effect is out of proportion to its probative value and the discretion contained in section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in relation to the admission of unfair evidence.
I think it's clear that the judge got it wrong, hence the defence attempting to have the occupation excluded.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 22, 2023 7:34:28 GMT
Your professional colleagues are being criticised because of people like you - do the right thing and resign!!! Outrage as Met Police officer who was caught performing a sex act on a train is STILL on the force six years later – and the disciplinary chair who let him off with a warning rose to Deputy Commissioner
PC Terry Malka was caught by train staff trying to hide his genitals with a headrest cover as he carried out a lewd act in a First Class carriage
PC Terry Malka carried out a drunken sex act in a First Class train carriage It follows Sir Mark Rowley acknowledging some officers are 'criminals in uniform' www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11777523/Met-Police-officer-caught-performing-sex-act-train-force-six-years-later.html |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Feb 22, 2023 8:40:07 GMT
Your professional colleagues are being criticised because of people like you - do the right thing and resign!!! Outrage as Met Police officer who was caught performing a sex act on a train is STILL on the force six years later – and the disciplinary chair who let him off with a warning rose to Deputy Commissioner
PC Terry Malka was caught by train staff trying to hide his genitals with a headrest cover as he carried out a lewd act in a First Class carriage
PC Terry Malka carried out a drunken sex act in a First Class train carriage It follows Sir Mark Rowley acknowledging some officers are 'criminals in uniform' www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11777523/Met-Police-officer-caught-performing-sex-act-train-force-six-years-later.htmlHe should have been sacked full stop |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 22, 2023 13:27:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Feb 22, 2023 14:53:41 GMT
His days maybe numbered , and rightly so if he has done what they suspect |
|
