Reuters report Home Office saying "police must prove key deliberately withheld"

[Donald Ramsbottom]

At 17:09 31/05/00 +0100, you wrote:
>In article <2HuYWrAjVLN5Ewj1@swarb.freeuk.com>, David Swarbrick
><david@swarb.freeuk.com> writes
>>No such information could possibly be found. Neither Magistrates nor
>>juries give reasons for factual findings.
>
>I was rather hoping someone rather like yourself would have a gut feel
>for the situation, based on your experience.
>-- 
>Roland Perry

                              
Well it's been some time since I was down at the magistrates or the Crown
Court, but  from an entirely partial and personal point of view, in the Mags
there were a lot more convictions than at CC. There were also a lot more
guilty pleas, which may account for it. At a push I'd say 75% in Mags were
"Guilty" either by admission or trial. At CC it is considerably more
difficult to obtain a conviction as there is a jury involved rather than a
bench of magistrates. The acquittal rate was probably 50%.

This is one reason HMG is trying to restrict Jury trials for lesser
offences, more people "get off" and it is more expensive.

Who do I think was guilty and who was not, excluding driving offences and
bindings over (which were universally applied to both parties in this area)
of the "professional criminals" I guess they were guilty around 80% of the
time and formed around 75% of the persons arrested. Of the others it was
always more difficult to judge (sic), but probably 50-50 on the guilty not
guilty score.

I repeat these are not official figures in any way but my "gut feelings",
they are partial and are merely presented as requested from "experience".

Donald Ramsbottom LL.B, BA (Hons).

RAMSBOTTOM & Co. Solicitors

Internet Law & Global Cryptology Law Specialists