Totally unacceptable behaviour!

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

cos they is tossers innit

didds

The Welsh? :biggrin:

 

[crossref]

a WRU disciplinary, or a club disciplinary doesn't find anyone guilty of assault. They find them guilty of transgression of Laws of rugby. I don't thnk that will sway a jury at all. even if they know about it.

it's completely different.

 

[Browner]

It's his barristers job to attempt to mitigate as much as he can, which doesn't mean its all accepted , or that it influences the sanction.

Trying to explain away your error is normal - just ask any prop.

 

[Dixie]

Trying to explain away your error is normal - just ask any prop.

Gethin Jenkins in particular!

 

[Account Deleted]

Jury's are only influenced if they are told.
Prejudicial info is often omitted.

So alone that's not a good enough reason.

And you think they would not find out? South wales is a small bubble. The case I refer to was: Game played in late November. The Court case was in early January. Player now in one of Her Majesties finest "hotels".

 

[crossref]

this is all very routine : all trials nowadays have to accept that plenty of stuff is publich knowledge on the internet and juries at every trial are told to ingore anything from the outside.

the idea that someone can't have a fair trial for assault because the jury knows they have already been banned from rugby for 8 weeks is just silly. That's a trivial thing for the jury to disregard .

 

[Account Deleted]

Well the police did not agree with you.

I have to say I'm surprised that people are naive enough to think that a juror having read that a player has been red carded and banned for punching another player would not carry that in their mind whilst weighing up the evidence in a court of law. Human nature suggests that they will.

 

[crossref]

Well the police did not agree with you.

I have to say I'm surprised that people are naive enough to think that a juror having read that a player has been red carded and banned for punching another player would not carry that in their mind whilst weighing up the evidence in a court of law. Human nature suggests that they will.

well if you are right, it's goodbye for jury trials then ... in almost every case nowadays juries can read all sorts of things about the defendant on the internet... If we can't trust them to disregard what they read then we'll have to move to judge only trials like the rest of the world.

 

[irishref]

Can someone tell me what the "6 month jailing" and "18 month suspension" actually means? I mean in general English/Welsh law, not this case!

 

[Browner]

Well the police did not agree with you.

I have to say I'm surprised that people are naive enough to think that a juror having read that a player has been red carded and banned for punching another player would not carry that in their mind whilst weighing up the evidence in a court of law. Human nature suggests that they will.

If a juror can't digest and separate the difference between how a governing body responds to matters prejudicial to the sport, and a criminal act where a custodial sentence could result, then that juror clearly isn't fit to consider the subtle and complex arguments being put forward by both sides barristers.

 

[irishref]

The jury system is such an anachronism and open to far more outside influence and non-legal influence. It's shameful in my humble one. Tried by my peers? Most of them are dumb with misconceptions and prejudices! he he he.

Give me a panel of legal experts trying my case all day, every day.

 

[OB..]

If a juror can't digest and separate the difference between how a governing body responds to matters prejudicial to the sport, and a criminal act where a custodial sentence could result, then that juror clearly isn't fit to consider the subtle and complex arguments being put forward by both sides barristers.

Your description fits with my experience. Jurors do not understand what they are doing because it has never been properly explained. They therefore (mis-)translate everything to personal experience.

I have long argued that the basics should be an obligatory part of a senior school curriculum.

 

[Account Deleted]

well if you are right, it's goodbye for jury trials then ... in almost every case nowadays juries can read all sorts of things about the defendant on the internet... If we can't trust them to disregard what they read then we'll have to move to judge only trials like the rest of the world.

And you've not read of the cases where there have been re trials for exactly the reasons mentioned? Massive sums have been wasted on retrials already and two jurors are serving / have served time for "researching" cases on the internet DURING trials.

 

[Account Deleted]

If a juror can't digest and separate the difference between how a governing body responds to matters prejudicial to the sport, and a criminal act where a custodial sentence could result, then that juror clearly isn't fit to consider the subtle and complex arguments being put forward by both sides barristers.

I though that was pretty common knowledge.

 

[Account Deleted]

Can someone tell me what the "6 month jailing" and "18 month suspension" actually means? I mean in general English/Welsh law, not this case!

" six months, suspended for 18 months." Means he has been sentenced to 6 months inside BUT he will not serve anytime inside as long as he behaves for the next 18 months. This will include and conditions such as the anger management course being completed properly. If he does anything including further arrests in that time he will serve the 6 months inside.

- - - Updated - - -

The jury system is such an anachronism and open to far more outside influence and non-legal influence. It's shameful in my humble one. Tried by my peers? Most of them are dumb with misconceptions and prejudices! he he he.

Give me a panel of legal experts trying my case all day, every day.

Agreed!

 

[Dickie E]

I told the judge that I was a great juror because I can tell if someone is guilty just by looking at them!

 

[menace]

I told the judge that I was a great juror because I can tell if someone is guilty just by looking at them!

:biggrin::biggrin:

You knob!:biggrin:

 

[davidgh]

That must've really enhanced the u14 tour!

Well done to the Barnstaple linesman for taking the nutter to law.

A little more of that would help to bring the less constrained violent types to realisation of their criminality!

 

[RobLev]

" six months, suspended for 18 months." Means he has been sentenced to 6 months inside BUT he will not serve anytime inside as long as he behaves for the next 18 months. This will include and conditions such as the anger management course being completed properly. If he does anything including further arrests in that time he will serve the 6 months inside.

...

Slight correction; whether, and how much of, the suspended sentence is activated will be determined by the judge sentencing him for the further offence. An arrest (on its own) won't trigger it.

 

[RobLev]

The jury system is such an anachronism and open to far more outside influence and non-legal influence. It's shameful in my humble one. Tried by my peers? Most of them are dumb with misconceptions and prejudices! he he he.

Give me a panel of legal experts trying my case all day, every day.

You might well get your wish; lawyers are no longer exempt from jury service.