Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: The first of many?
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
pete |
An especially shocking example of the corrupt pursuit of cognitions at all costs, JK.
The Truss plan to cut costs and lock more innocent people up for the sake of political expediency has drawn more fire today:
Of course, giving evidence about a crime you have been a victim of is deeply distressing. But Truss’s plans are terrible, for a number of reasons. First, they increase the inequality between the defendant and his accuser. Going to court as a defendant can also be extremely distressing, especially if you have been falsely accused. The fact that complainants will be afforded rights that are not afforded to defendants means their experience is uneven; it damages the ideal of legal equality.
…
The cross-examination process is when the defence’s case is put to the complainant. If the complainant says something new when she/he is giving evidence, then the defendant must be able to challenge this new evidence and put his own case. But if the cross-examination is pre-recorded, then the ability of the defendant to respond to evidence will be severely limited. The defence case will be incapable of adapting or changing in light of what is said by the complainant.
…
Liz Truss is the latest in a long line of politicians who see rape reform as a way of generating favourable headlines, with little thought to the impact they might have on the justice system. These proposals further erode the principle that a defendant and his accuser are equal before the law, and they make it more difficult for the justice system to deal with rape effectively. Scrap them.
www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/li...t/19583#.WM_uLoXXLDc |
|
JK2006 |
An example from my trial 17 years ago.
One "victim" revealed in cross examination that he and his sister had discussed compensation at great length with the police officer - how much, how long to get it, whether it could be increased if extra details were added...
My QC had managed to get the police excluded from the court so they did not hear what witnesses said.
When the police officer gave evidence she swore, on the bible, to "tell the truth" and swore that not one word about compensation had passed between her and the man or sister.
Sadly this evidence of lies failed to influence Judge or Jury (transcripts are available).
With the Truss law - the pre recorded interview would either have been known about by bent cop (who would have adapted her story) or there would be no way to question the first witness about compensation conversations.
How to boost miscarriages of justice. Simples. |
|
JK2006 |
So what happens next? Probably someone accuses Liz Truss of historical rape. It must, of course, be true (as Max Clifford would say). Or her husband (does she have one? It was the other token cabinet woman who used to be married to AA Gill, wasn't it?). I tort I taw a husband. We've all (in the media) heard the rumours about the spouse of another senior politician. So that case (must be believed) comes to court and Liz or her relative experiences not being able to challenge the allegation (or allegations - there would be dozens more after the publicity; as Gambo calls them, the "band wagoners") in the court as they have all been pre recorded and suitably edited ("more tears! more tears!").
I cannot for one second consider the possibility that the woman hasn't understood that any rise in Guilty pleas comes from lawyers telling clients to plead guilty to offences they never committed because they will be convicted anyway (especially if there is no cross examination). And this way they get a smaller sentence. She knows that. SURELY she knows that? She tort she taw a plea law.
I think Liz should make Danny Day Justice Minister. He appears to have the right approach. |
|
JK2006 |
Allison Pearson writes a column (thanks Pete for pointing it out in another post - it needs its own thread) pointing out the madness.
She doesn't go far enough. If passed into law I suggest this breaks the law. Absolutely it breaks the Human Rights Law which, thank God, we are a part of.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/19/rape...ery-slope-injustice/ |
|
|
|
