The legal system is just mad

No I don’t (oops, I’ve given my opinion again, I doubt anyone will be too upset about it this time though). It’s not about what I believe though is it? It’s about everyone having a trial. You still haven’t told me what your proposed law change is, what do you think the new law should be?

 

I’m not on about denying ‘people’ a fair trial, I am on about a prisoner who has escaped prison and was riding along a canal bank on a pushbike somewhere he should clearly not have been.

 

escaped prisoners go back to custody and await their original trial, where the escape bid should be taken into consideration, that’s all. I totally agree that as a whole people have a right to plead their innocence.

 

What’s with the quotation marks around ‘people’? So now not only does someone not get a trial in your new world but they’re also no longer classified as a human?

 

Whether you realise it or not that is precisely what you are on about.

 

Not in a recaptured prisoners case, no.

 

I'd like to see a Venn Diagram of people who think Russell Brand is "innocent till proven guilty" and people who think this bloke doesn't deserve a trial.

 

no I only put the quotation around people , because people were being quoted to me when my comments only referred to this case.

 

Are you a policy adviser for Suella Braverman?

 

I give up, if that’s the tack you are taking , in fact forget it all together..

 

The trial will be a Pig-Circus, he hasn't got a chance. (Robert Zimmerman).

 

That’s because it would be used to set a precedent in other cases. I’ve seen people say that murderers in particularly gruesome cases that happened in public shouldn’t get a trial because it was obvious what happened. Then it gets down to what legally counts as obvious. How many witnesses does there need to be and how do we decide which ones to accept as fact? It might seem obvious which ones but this would all need to be written into law and work for every possible circumstance going forward in which it could be argued that no trial should be allowed and automatic guilt should be presumed.

 

fair enough JD , honestly I can see where you are coming from but we will have to agree to disagree on this one because I am sick of people like this bloke making a mockery of the legal system.And let’s not forget what the original charge refers to in this case.

 

You're saying that in some circumstances people should be denied the ability to plead not guilty to criminal charges. I get politics is about opinions, but that is as close to objectively wrong as you can be, completely out of whack with all sane jurisprudence.

 

Evan Gershkovic was prevented from appealing his detention before trial in Russia yesterday. Perhaps that's the sort of society NYR is after? Let's not allow people to plead not guilty. Let's not bother with a trial. Let's just let the big man in the centre decide who can enter a denial and who can have a trial. Better make sure you're on the right side of the big man though!

 

Who were doing the security when he escaped, Group 4 ?.

 

Can some one explain to me what happens in court can you plead guilty/ not guilty to each of the charges or is it all or nothing.

Is it as simple as he is pleading not guilty to
the three other charges he faces from before the alleged escape are:

• collecting information useful to the enemy, allegedly Iran
• eliciting information about members of the armed forces likely to be useful to a person preparing an act of terrorism
• perpetrating a bomb hoax

Or could be be going for a defence of I'm not guilty of those so shouldn't have been there in the first place

 

Different pleas can be entered to each charge. Separate trials may also be required if each charge is unconnected with the others. Being realistic, he has no defence to the charge of escaping from lawful custody, but he is entitled to enter a denial and oblige the prosecution to prove that offence beyond reasonable doubt. Odd though it may seem, that is one of the greatest strengths of our criminal law system. It is often cited as "The golden thread" running through the English Criminal Law, as set out by Viscount Sankey in the celebrated case of Woolmington v DPP (1935).

 

He's still innocent until proven guilty on the original charges, currently, and was being held on remand at the time of the escape. As far as I'm aware, he doesn't currently have any criminal convictions.

I doubt there's a person on this thread who doesn't believe that his not guilty plea on the escape is utterly ludicrous, based on what's in the public domain. However, denying this right of anyone facing a criminal trial would be an extremely dangerous precedent.

In this case, it might simply be a tactical move on the suggestion of his solicitors to ensure that a trial takes place, presumably held concurrently with his trial on the original charges, and to prevent him being convicted of any crime before this trial takes place. Just a guess on my part, but it would make some sense of things if this were the case.

 

We have to have a trial because our own basic beliefs in fairness and the rights of people also include people like him. In cases like serial killers we individually prosecute on behalf of each victim even if the perpetrator pleads guilty to everything. Ye it looks like a huge waste of time and money but it's the rights our ancestors fought for and should be held precious by all of us, even if it occasionally benefits offenders like this one..