Comments on: The war on ignorance

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 08:51:00 +0000

This was the tactic tried by the defendant in a case where I served on the jury, but it didn’t work: we found him guilty on every count and he got ten years.

I can see why he tried it, though – there was no doubt whatsoever that he was the assailant (far too much forensic evidence, witness statements and CCTV evidence for him to get away with a "not me, guv" approach), so it was pretty much his only option. But we saw right through him at a very early stage, and I’d be amazed if any other jury had felt differently.

By: Simon

Simon — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 08:31:00 +0000

One thing which isn’t pointed out enough is that loads of violent thugs who go through the system plead not guilty on the grounds of self-defence, because they know juries tend to be on the side of people defending themselves from attack – although, of course, in most cases it’s fairly obvious the defence is entirely spurious ("he brutally attacked my fist with his head", etc).

By: dave heasman

dave heasman — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 07:19:00 +0000

You omitted the first line, which was the clue – " a case that I saw sentenced at a Crown Court", which means that the sentence would be more than the 6 months a magistrate could give. 9 years seems a lot, mind; I’d have thought 3 or so..