From webstump at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Fri May 10 23:06:56 2024 Return-path: To: hex at ..seen.ac.am Subject: Re: Re: Auriol Grey Conviction Overturned References: In-Reply-To: Reply-To: matthewv+ulmtestmod at ..riolis.greenend.org.uk Errors-To: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk X-Webstump-Event: [171537491819333] reject notnew Message-Id: From: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 23:06:55 +0100 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected by a moderator. This post contains insufficient new material. Similar points have been made already in this discussion, which is in danger of becoming too repetitive. The group charter and moderation policy can be found at https://uklegal.weebly.com/ Disputed moderation decisions can be discussed in the newsgroup uk.net.news.moderation ============================================ Full text of your message follows > From webstump@chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri May 10 22:01:58 2024 > Return-path: > Envelope-to: webstump+?@slimy.greenend.org.uk > Received-SPF: pass (mailhub-cam-d.mythic-beasts.com: domain of uni-berlin.de designates 130.133.4.89 as permitted sender) client-ip=130.133.4.89; envelope-from=mod-submit@uni-berlin.de; helo=outpost5.zedat.fu-berlin.de; > To: uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > From: Norman Wells > Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated > Subject: Re: Auriol Grey Conviction Overturned > Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 22:01:54 +0100 > Message-ID: > References: > > > > > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > X-Orig-X-Trace: individual.net 7HWP+WiJsQyrSLkUpJc7hAnWvunasm+10fUTpGwtqOmnenuIZt > Cancel-Lock: sha1:Fa4+oXM8yt2IaJD3vHSH8oRZ3B4= sha256:uNufiUBZebop8ro6fUi62Gbo7gBGiNdPEmz3RIO5T0M= > User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird > Content-Language: en-GB > X-Originating-IP: 130.133.4.5 > X-ZEDAT-Hint: RO > X-Mythic-Source-External: YES > X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 24 > X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.4 > Delivered-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-BlackCat-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-Mythic-Originator: uid-1081-on-lynx.mythic-beasts.com > X-STUMP-Warning-0: Unfolded headers Received: Received: Received: Received: Received: Received: Received: Received: > > On 10/05/2024 17:34, The Todal wrote: > > On 10/05/2024 14:28, Norman Wells wrote: > >> On 10/05/2024 12:01, The Todal wrote: > >>> On 08/05/2024 22:42, Norman Wells wrote: > >>>> On 08/05/2024 22:24, The Todal wrote: > >>>>> On 08/05/2024 19:37, Jethro_uk wrote: > >>>>>> On Wed, 08 May 2024 15:54:32 +0100, JNugent wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 08/05/2024 02:34 pm, Spike wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> [quoted text muted] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Exactly. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Let us all hope that the lady has not lost her home in the > >>>>>>> meantime (as > >>>>>>> was forecast, quite gleefully, by certain of the usual suspects) and > >>>>>>> that either way, the not-inconsiderable little matter of adequate > >>>>>>> compensation for Auriol Grey - an innocent victim of a lobby we > >>>>>>> dare not > >>>>>>> name - is not overlooked. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I thought we'd scrapped compensation for wrongful convictions ? > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I don't think it has been scrapped, but it wouldn't apply to this > >>>>> situation. It only applies, I think, if no properly directed jury > >>>>> could find the defendant guilty. Here, the judge's directions were > >>>>> faulty. > >>>> > >>>> So, the jury was not properly directed.  Had it been, based on the > >>>> evidence and arguments presented in court, no jury would have found > >>>> her guilty.  That's the essence of the Appeal Court decision.  The > >>>> prosecution did not make its case under the law even to the extent > >>>> that the matter should have been put to the jury. > >>> > >>> You are, of course, wrong. > >>> > >>> Having created the illusion that you understood the relevant law, you > >>> now blot your copybook by misunderstanding and misrepresenting what > >>> the Court of Appeal has said. > >> > >> Hardly. > >> > >> "In our judgment, the prosecution case was insufficient even to be > >> left to the jury". > >> > >> > > > > That is because the case was defective because it did not identify the > > base offence, the unlawful act. If you take the trouble to read beyond > > the words you have quoted you will see that the prosecution should have > > established the actus reus and then the mens rea, which it failed to do. > > And > > > > quote > > > > The jury would have required careful directions as to how to approach > > such evidence, that is, of the appellant’s cognition and her > > disabilities, and its impact on her actions and perceptions at the time. > > As it was, the jury were simply not directed to consider the mental > > element. > > > > unquote > > > > Those are clearly not the words of a Court of Appeal judge who thought > > that there never was a case for the defendant to answer, that no > > properly directed jury could possibly convict. > > On the basis of what the Court of Appeal saw, which included the judge's > summing up in addition to the papers we have previously seen, it is > absolutely clear it considered there was no case to answer. It wasn't > even arguable. > > "In our judgment, the prosecution case was insufficient even to be left > to the jury". > > > You obviously believe > > that it would be impossible to construct a viable prosecution against > > her. But that's just a layman's view, not the view of a lawyer. > > > > If the prosecution had identified the unlawful act, structured its > > examination of witnesses towards proving that the act was unlawful and > > that Ms Grey had the necessary mens rea, then it is possible a jury > > might have convicted her. I hope it would not have done. As I have made > > clear. > > Er, it did anyway. > > However, all you're saying is that if the prosecution could prove all > the elements required for common assault then common assault could be > proved, which is of course a statement of the stunningly obvious. > > But the evidence is just not there, nor is there anything else that > could be produced, so it's a complete non-starter. > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEfWu6wfyjzX88oocanSrwpvmn4x4FAmY+mn8ACgkQnSrwpvmn 4x6MiggAgug9TJ+12Qfgcy/Yoqp2JWUUkqTCBttPCm2BZxKsudXI4HoJ5vJp/WJc E8S6a22h83Eh7WXPL+AsBjKZWBeqkJ9ipihPANflLH1XESBjoJsdoPfo+NzX0v2R lnc3nZ450VPgsYxqDvOEAWXaodGCkGhNkP1cdj1iyWO4yTF1d0YIONA6YmgnuAvd HOdm808O7iSrNjG3SfKRNO49TV73XTbG30mQXeMq+4k6+J6GtBUq944RM3uggKTD Uc+8yBIYN8ZSXWxHSP6oCdNbVY6BRfQOIzsOBkzt0TLa6p51fRBd4+7PkvXEusfL LpsDZQjP36RRMoj+gdHlXJVV3ZWA/A== =Pnb6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----