The Lee Rigby trial is about the best value for money this government could get, beyond I dunno paying some one to give Clegg a daily kick up the bum.
No trial free Guantanomo, just a fair, open public trial, where the idiot defendants got their 5 minutes of fame. It's about the biggest victory in the war on terror we won all year.
Justice not law, is the chant of people who set fire to pedeatricians houses or their neighbours dustbins.
Quote: sootyj @ 6th January 2014, 4:10 PM GMTThe Lee Rigby trial is about the best value for money this government could get,
Obviously guilty killers - and I mean obviously guilty - dozens of witnesses, public confession, video footage and attacking the police with a gun at the scene of the crime kind of guilty - should never be allowed to force the relatives of the loved ones to sit through that kind of ordeal all over again. It's morally disgusting and financially reprehensible.
When Rigby's killers said they wanted to plead Not Guilty, their brief should have told them there and then, it ain't gonna fly. Similarly, the CPS should never have allowed this court case to proceed due to the overwhelming amount of evidence against the accused.
But, you know, cha-ching! $$$
I question how it was reported.
But that it sent a message out to the various nutters around the world, that we're better than you and you can't lower us to your level.
You either have laws or you don't, you either apply them to everyone or you don't.
There's no middle ground.
And if the CPS hadn't represented them and they'd defended themselves or get some Islamist nut job to do it. Can you imagine what an abortion that would be?
Quote: sootyj @ 6th January 2014, 4:30 PM GMTYou either have laws or you don't, you either apply them to everyone or you don't.
There's no middle ground.
That's blatantly untrue, discretionary powers have been used for centuries to settle matters out of court.
And that's been a huge success hasn't it?
They were British citizens, who had for various reasons didn't come under the mental health act.
I'd be intrigued to know of any examples of out of court settlements you're referring to?
And ones where the plaintiff complied don't count.
Quote: sootyj @ 6th January 2014, 4:37 PM GMTI'd be intrigued to know of any examples of out of court settlements you're referring to?
Some bloke with a hook for a hand.
What was he on trial for? I thought his was all those weird subjudice PATRIOT style acts that the government brought in.
I mean did he actually commit a crime?
Where as you pointed out that these guys commited a crime, habeas corpus and all that.
I do worry when we argue about the law, we sound like a couple of scofulous parrots, debating who's the prettiest Polly?
(it's me by the way)
Quote: sootyj @ 6th January 2014, 4:48 PM GMTI do worry when we argue about the law, we sound like a couple of scofulous parrots, debating who's the prettiest Polly?
(it's me by the way)
I'm not debating the law, I'm debating it as a fixed construct - Saatchi and Nigella admit wife beating and snorting coke and not a single prosecution is made.
Hooky McBomber was denied further court appeals on his extradition even though he was allowed to by law - the Home Secretary said 'screw this' and chucked the terrorist hate preacher on a plane.
So denying the Rigby killers a day in court, especially with the overwhelming amount of evidence, would not have been seen as a miscarriage of justice.
So it wasn't a criminal case.
I think the day, courts convict anyone of anything without a trial, then it' a scary day for justice or law.
Quote: sootyj @ 6th January 2014, 5:02 PM GMTSo it wasn't a criminal case.
I think the day, courts convict anyone of anything without a trial, then it' a scary day for justice or law.
There is a precedent for submitting the case on record if both the prosecution and defence agree, where there is no open trial and a Judge, not a jury, determines guilt and sentencing.
That is how it should have been done with the Rigby killers - all nice and legal, but no need for a public circus and traumatised relatives.
I think if the defendants were found to be incapable of making a decision then maybe, but they didn't. Thanks to the UK having some of the most humane laws on mental capacity in the world.
As it is, it's like the death sentence. It's easy when it's for someone whose obvious, then it gets applied to someone where it isn't.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ 6th January 2014, 5:11 PM GMTThere is a precedent for submitting the case on record if both the prosecution and defence agree, where there is no open trial and a Judge, not a jury, determines guilt and sentencing.
That is how it should have been done with the Rigby killers - all nice and legal, but no need for a public circus and traumatised relatives.
Cite it then RC.
What you're thinking of is probably what was done in Northern Ireland (a different jurisdiction). They were called Diplock courts (after a senior judge of the time) where the judge heard the case alone.
But big problem is if the accused tells his brief that he didn't do it, then the brief is duty bound to run the case on the basis of that plea. However, if the accused admits doing it and then says run with not guilty then the brief should walk away.
I always thought that was odd, that you actually have to lie to your brief, if you want to get away with naughtiness.
Quote: KLRiley @ 6th January 2014, 5:22 PM GMTCite it then RC.
Great, someone who admits to being in the legal profession is putting the burden of proof upon me for legal precedents.
As always, I win -
That just meant it was a none jury trial.
In this case, I guess no one made a sufficently strong case about jury tampering. A better example would be family courts; no jury, no press, gagging orders etc.