"Perverting the course of justice" is a CPS go-to when it is really desperate for a conviction.
They tack it onto any and everything when they know that they have no real case for the main charge. It provides a cover for their own wanton criminality and general incompetence. But not this time.
They tack it onto any and everything when they know that they have no real case for the main charge. It provides a cover for their own wanton criminality and general incompetence. But not this time.
Not that there has yet been justice for Fiona Onasanya. Unless the jury is convinced beyond reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt, then the defendant ought to be found not guilty.
That is also why we should not have conviction by majority verdict. It is not conviction beyond reasonable doubt. For centuries, we never had it. Most Common Law jurisdictions still do not have it.
Unless the prosecution has convinced all 12 jurors beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, then the verdict should be not guilty. Not a mistrial. An acquittal. A recorded verdict of not guilty.
And no more of allowing the acquitted to be tried again for the same offence. There was none of that for many centuries, either. Nor does it exist in many, if any, other Common Law jurisdictions.
What's that you say? "Rogue jurors"? You mean people who might stand up to the State? And on the basis of personal experience of the bad things that it sometimes does? Where will it all end?
Another hung Parliament is coming, and we need our people to hold the balance of power in it. I will stand for this parliamentary seat of North West Durham, if I can raise the £10,000 necessary to mount a serious campaign. Please email davidaslindsay@hotmail.com. Very many thanks.
That is also why we should not have conviction by majority verdict. It is not conviction beyond reasonable doubt. For centuries, we never had it. Most Common Law jurisdictions still do not have it.
Unless the prosecution has convinced all 12 jurors beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, then the verdict should be not guilty. Not a mistrial. An acquittal. A recorded verdict of not guilty.
And no more of allowing the acquitted to be tried again for the same offence. There was none of that for many centuries, either. Nor does it exist in many, if any, other Common Law jurisdictions.
What's that you say? "Rogue jurors"? You mean people who might stand up to the State? And on the basis of personal experience of the bad things that it sometimes does? Where will it all end?
Another hung Parliament is coming, and we need our people to hold the balance of power in it. I will stand for this parliamentary seat of North West Durham, if I can raise the £10,000 necessary to mount a serious campaign. Please email davidaslindsay@hotmail.com. Very many thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment