Why cant we talk about JG trial?

M

MagicMelon

Well-Known Member
Joined
6 November 2004
Messages
16,386
Location
North East Scotland
Visit site
Sorry people, but why can we not talk about JG?!

Ive read the HHO post "and it is against the law to discuss aspects of the case which will be evidence during the case. Please not post anything on the forum which may prejudice the case — ie pertaining to the condition of Mr Gray’s horses or your views on his innocence or guilt." Since when was it against the law to discuss things which may be evidence during a case?! Ive never heard this before... Its purely speculation anyway and since when were we NOT allowed to give our views on whether a person is guilty or not?! Those on court duty are the ones doing the deciding, so why cant we have freedom of speech about this matter?!
crazy.gif
 
I think it's because this is a public forum, and therefore any comments inferring that he's guilty, could indicate strong public feeling, which could be used by the defence to say that it isn't a fair trial.

A fair trial has to be exactly that - the judge and jury must have open minds. If they could be influenced by what is read, the trial is no longer fair, and is thrown out.

In particular, comments such as "he's guilty, hang the b******" could influence a guilty verdict - almost as if the decision has been made by the public and the judge and jury have to go along with it.

Sorry, I'm not making much sense here. At least the courts haven't put a media ban on it, and we can still get updates.

It would be the same for any high profile case, and if media and public interest become too great for the trial to be fair, it will be stopped and the case thrown out. That's the last thing any of us want.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Since when was it against the law to discuss things which may be evidence during a case?!

[/ QUOTE ]
Since the Contempt of Court Act of 1981. Your freedom of speech could provide the accused with sufficient grounds to get a trial stopped, and land yourself in court for contempt.

I suspect that neither is an outcome that you want!
 
^^^ What they said.

I am so bored of pointing this out.

If you want the trial to collapse and HHO to be taken for contempt of court, go ahead, discuss what you like.
 
Not only the contempt of court issue but if you say something against the man and he is found not guilty then he can sue your a** and Horse and Hound's
 
Nobody wants this guy to get off on a Contempt of Court issue - so, please as all the ^^^^^ people have said. Keep your thoughts and feelings under wraps - it's important!!
 
Agree with the above - how would you feel if JG got off as the jury could have been found to have been swayed by looking on forums like these. A member of the jury could be a HHO user.

We have all seen the media reports, if anyone had any evidence they should have gone to the police to make a statement and not gob off on forums months later
 
Why do people think there is a jury involved?

When prosecuted for animal welfare offencies you are not entitled to a jury trial.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Why do people think there is a jury involved?

When prosecuted for animal welfare offencies you are not entitled to a jury trial.

[/ QUOTE ]

The JG trial is at Magistrates Court, before the District Judge, so no jury is involved. Most animal cruelty cases are heard at Magistrates Court - without a jury - but a defendant/s CAN elect to be tried in Crown Court in front of a jury.

The sub judice rules do not differentiate between different types of court cases or consider whether or not a jury is involved.
 
[ QUOTE ]


The JG trial is at Magistrates Court, before the District Judge, so no jury is involved. Most animal cruelty cases are heard at Magistrates Court - without a jury - but a defendant/s CAN elect to be tried in Crown Court in front of a jury.

The sub judice rules do not differentiate between different types of court cases or consider whether or not a jury is involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not possible to elect to have a Crown Court trial in front of a jury for Animal Welfare Act prosecutions for neglect or cruelty. That is the reason why the term of imprisonment was set at 51 weeks. If it had been a year defendants could have elected for trial by jury, something that both the RSPCA and governement knew would lead to far too many acquittals of RSPCA brought prosecutions.

The sub judice rules assume that a professional judge, albeit in this case a district judge, is less likely to be affected by publicity than a jury. Nevertheleess, even in magistrates court the witnesses could still be influenced by what they see or hear out of court.

Good summary can be found at
http://www.independentproducerhandbook.c...dice-rules.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/bma2l8
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top