Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

Latest travesty of the British legal system?

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Dear me....

This is a waste of time for the courts, but I think the solution proposed in the article is right.... award £1 compensation, and fine him for wasting the courts' time.

I do wonder at the state of society... don't you?

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, I stopped wondering about society years ago...I know that its totally fucked up..

    This story doesnt surprise me in the least. In fact, im surprised it didnt come sooner.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That is fucked up. Tony Martin has already been sent to prison, he shouldn't have to pay compensation to the fucking scroat as well.
    But he's from Newark, so he's bound to be a total arsehole.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Just wondering whether I'd get banned (again) for advocating a lynching here...? Well I won't...it does come to mind though.

    People have the kind of government they deserve...dear cousins, whatever did you do to deserve what is happening to you?

    :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes, it seems again that the law is protecting the wrong people.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Its because the courts can no longer declare incedents to be "acts of god".

    It means that for every action you can find some-one who's fault it is.

    I think the other factor that makes this sort of ridiculas case feasible is that the burden of proof is completly different between the criminal and civil (?). Its possible to be found innocent in the criminal court (not going to prison), and later be found guilty in the civil court (having to pay £100,000) of the same crime.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by cokephreak
    Its because the courts can no longer declare incedents to be "acts of god".

    It means that for every action you can find some-one who's fault it is.

    I think the other factor that makes this sort of ridiculas case feasible is that the burden of proof is completly different between the criminal and civil (?). Its possible to be found innocent in the criminal court (not going to prison), and later be found guilty in the civil court (having to pay £100,000) of the same crime.


    None of that made sense at all.
    The criminal courts and civil courts are the same thing. It is magistrates court and crown court that are different.
    People who are tried in a magistrates court can goto crown court for many varying reasons:
    1)They choose to have a trial by jury.
    2)if the defendant wishes to appeal his/her sentence. Doing this however may result in an increased sentence, as well as significant jail time.
    3)The magistrates may decide that they are unable to give a sufficient punishment as they are limited to what they can do. The maximum fine in a magistrates court is £5000. In a crown court it is unlimited. Prison sentences in a magistrates court are rare, and if used are limited to 18 months. Crown courts can give unlimited jail sentences depending on the crime.

    it is not possible to be found innocent in the magistrate's court and then to be retried for the same crime in the crown court as this is double jeopardy. You cannot be tried for the same crime twice as you have already been found innocent.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    yup, thats what i meant...
    Civil = magistrates
    criminal = crown.

    I would go and edit the original, ut that seems like too much effort. :)

    It is true though that how much "proof" you need to be found guilty is much higher if your going to prison (crown court) than if your 'just' being fined.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    no, there is no such thing as a variation in proof. You are either proven guilty, or found innocent.
    People recieve varying sentences depending on mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

    Mitigating mean a factor that will give you a favourable outcome on your sentence, criteria for this will be seriousness of the offence, was it premeditated, was the defendant provoked, was the defendant intoxicated, is the defendant of previously good character, was the defendant coerced into committing the offence, was the offence an act of self-defence e.t.c.

    Aggravating is the opposite.

    As for Tony Martin, relative to what he would have recieved for an unprovoked attack he has recieved a light sentence. And you have to remember, that it was a trial by jury, normal people like you and I who found him guilty, NOT the judge.
    everyone was "outraged" by him being taken to court, but at the end of the day it was the very same people who found him guilty and sent him to prison.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    With reference to this particular story - where has the travesty occured? No claim has been successful yet...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ok, this is how i thought the whole proof thing worked. I say this is how i think it works because i have a feeling this is wrong, and a correctiong will be quick in coming.

    Proof for the crown court (ie if jail term is going to be aplicable) needs to be 100% conclusive. If there is the remotest possibility of the defendant being innocent the verdict should be innocent, even if its only a 1% chance of them not 'doing it'.

    Proof for the magistrates court (like some-ones being sued) only needs to satify the magistrate, not conclusivly prove guilt.

    While i'm on the subject of showing my ignorance....

    Who and how is it decided if some-one should pay court costs? When thats said is it all costs, or just the costs of the state? I mean, if i hire a very expensive lawyer and win a case, my opponent having to pay "all costs", does he have to pay my lawyers bills as well as the time in court?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Beyond reasonable doubt applies at all times...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by cokephreak
    Ok, this is how i thought the whole proof thing worked. I say this is how i think it works because i have a feeling this is wrong, and a correctiong will be quick in coming.

    Proof for the crown court (ie if jail term is going to be aplicable) needs to be 100% conclusive. If there is the remotest possibility of the defendant being innocent the verdict should be innocent, even if its only a 1% chance of them not 'doing it'.

    Proof for the magistrates court (like some-ones being sued) only needs to satify the magistrate, not conclusivly prove guilt.

    While i'm on the subject of showing my ignorance....

    Who and how is it decided if some-one should pay court costs? When thats said is it all costs, or just the costs of the state? I mean, if i hire a very expensive lawyer and win a case, my opponent having to pay "all costs", does he have to pay my lawyers bills as well as the time in court?


    If in a magistrate's court it was found that the magistrate was not 100% sure about the defendant's guilt or if he said something stupid like "I don't think I can prove you guilty enough to send you to prison so I'll fine you" (and it has happened) then when the defendant appeals to the crown court the case will be thrown out and the defendant released.
    When someone is ordered to pay costs, it is usually the costs associated with bringing a case to trial, so everything BUT the opponent's costs.
    The bill for a court case is huge, and it is unlikely that te defendant would have to pay the entire amount. If they had to pay for the plaintiff's lawyer then it will be as compensation or a fine which will be passed on later.

    The defendant doesn't have to pay the fine/cost all at once, they are means tested and arrangements are made to pay the fines within one year, unless a special request for an extension is made.

    Nothing wrong with the questions you're asking, I doubt anyone who doesn't have some sort of law qualification would know all the answers anyway, luckily I'm doing BA Criminology which has a lot of law in it so I can answer a lot of the basic questions.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by cokephreak
    Its because the courts can no longer declare incedents to be "acts of god".

    It means that for every action you can find some-one who's fault it is.
    Well, hey, cokephreak, whatever you think of the rights and wrongs of him going to prison - he pulled the fucking trigger. Don't think that could really be classed as an act of god.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Prufrock : In this case it was indeed not an act of God, but was it the farmers fault for pulling the trigger, or the theives fault for being in some-one else's house?

    I think its the fact that courts can no longer rule thing "acts of god" thats leading to this compensation culture, which will soon rival america's.
    It means people will look for compensation when they really have little or no right to it, just because some-one else was at fault aswell.

    whowhere : thanks for the info. Hopefully i'l never get such an understanding of the british legal system (cos i wont be getting it like you)
Sign In or Register to comment.