UKC

Lucy Letby to stand trial for attempted murder. Two questions:

1. Why, who benefits apart from lawyers?

2. Where are you going to get a jury that is unbiased?

This is surely like when my cat catches a mouse, just an abuse of power because it can.

In reply to bleddynmawr:

The bereaved family may well get a degree of closure.

Also justice must also seen to be done, as the CPS must think they have enough evidence for a retrial in this case (they're not pursuing 5 similar cases).

Or are you of the 'That'll do, what's the point' view when it comes to multiple murder?

Same way as they do for other high profile cases that have been heavily reported in the media.

Disagree.

In reply to Ridge:

No unreasonable is it? Particularly given the huge backlog in the CJ system, prosecuting people in prison for life anyway, doesn't seem a great use of resources.

In reply to MG:

A waste of time and money. There is a long history of trying "test " cases, For example with Shipman 20 or so cases were heard rather than 200+. These are the same police that can't attend your burglary because they are prosecuting people already in jail for life.

In reply to bleddynmawr:

I think you'll find the CPS do the prosecuting, not the Police.

In reply to Ridge:

Once someone has got multiple life sentences yeah I would tend towards that view.

Given the cost and the fact it failed last time I would only go for the retrial if the other successful cases were looking dodgy on appeal.

In reply to bleddynmawr:

Imagine someone was found guilty of murder however DNA evidence later exonerated them of that particular crime, and the prosecution simply hadn't bothered to prosecute all the other murders the person done simply because they were too busy...!

In reply to bleddynmawr:

I know the CPS prosecute, but do you imagine that no police are involved?

In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

Indeed. As well as any future parole hearing, etc...

In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

The other side of that (rather improbable potential) is crimes not investigated/prosecuted because the police/CPS were too busy re-prosecuting those already convicted. There are definitely many thousand of these, so I think sensible balance has to be not repeating things (particularly when, as here, the attempt failed the first.tims)

In reply to bleddynmawr:

I think if the old bill and cps believed someone had tried to murder your baby you might want something done. 

Its generally in the public interest to prosecute those accused of murdering babies where there is sufficient evidence to prove the charge.

In reply to Lrunner:

She’s only being retried on one of the charges not the other six plus the old bill and cps believe she tried to kill.

She’s already been to trial on this case before and there was obviously insufficient evidence then so it’ll be interesting to see what the new evidence is.

In reply to bleddynmawr:

Somewhere there will be a child and their family living every day with the consequences of something that happened to them. The justice system doesn't just exist for public protection.

jk

In reply to Tyler:

There need not be any new evidence. The jury couldn't decide. If she'd been found not guilty I.e not enough evidence or something exculpatory the cps wouldn't be able to try her again unless in exceptional circumstances. That's happened only a handful of times. 

In reply to Lrunner:

How does this work? It sounds very like a de facto not proven verdict, as in Scotland.

In reply to MG:

Not proven is innocent in every common law jurisdiction except Scotland.it Confuses juries. Which is why they are getting rid if it. Being found not guilty can mean there isn't enough evidence or the jury didn't think you did it. 

If they can't reach a verdict it's because in a hyperthetical case the jury couldn't agree either way. 

If the jury can't reach a verdict then the prosecution can opt for a retrial. They are unlikely to go for a case which they won't win which is why they don't go for it again lightly.

In reply to Lrunner:

Incorrect - it's 'not guilty.' Nobody is ever found 'innocent' in a criminal trial.

In reply to Lrunner:

But that basically allows another attempt at prosecution that wouldn't be allowed with an innocent verdict. Which means in practice there are three possible verdicts with different consequences.

Well you haven't been found guilty by virtue that the charge is not proven. So you would be innocent.

In reply to Lrunner:

That's not what 'not guilty' means. Yours is a very common misconception though.

In reply to Lrunner:

Your understanding is incorrect. And, if you were a cop, that's slightly worrying!

Here's a discussion of the same underlying principle which might be of interest: https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-ev...

In reply to Lrunner:

Read point 1 of the link I've posted above.

Really - if you were a cop and don't understand this, it's a bad situation.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

It's splitting hairs though isn't it? We have the phrase innocent until proved guilty so it's reasonable to regard those acquitted as innocent as commonly.umderstood.

In reply to Lrunner:

The point is that we never know what the jury think. That's not how it works. All we know is their decision on whether or not the prosecution case has been proved.

Exaxtly, i conceed that the court never declare someone innocent but under the law not guilty means the same thing

In reply to Lrunner:

No, it doesn't. The link I posted above makes this quite clear.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

So what legally is the difference between someone who has never stood trial, and someone acquitted? None as far as I am aware. In which case either both are innocent or everyone is merely "not guilty".

In reply to Rob Parsons:

OK mate agree to disagree.  

In reply to MG:

There's a clear difference between somebody who has never been formally charged with any crime, and somebody who has been so charged, and subsequently tried.

In the case of the former, in what context are you using the adjectives 'innocent' or 'guilty'?

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Is there, legally, if acquitted? What is it?

Wrt having commited a crime - either you have been found to have done so, or you haven't.

In reply to MG:

Being found 'not guilty' does not equate to being found 'innocent.' The link I posted above makes this explicitly clear.

It might indeed be that, in any particular case, the jurors are indeed convinced that a defendant is totally innocent - but we will never know that, since that's not how the system works.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

There is no difference. If you are found not guilty you are legally in an identical position to if you had never been tried. No need to tell anyone, no restrictions on travel etc etc.Its the same. 

In reply to Rob Parsons:

If you are saying you haven't  been actively *found* innocent rather than presumed so, well yes. But that's also true of those not tried.

In reply to MG:

I have never said that that was not the case - so here, you are arguing against yourself.

Out of interest, do you consider that O J Simpson (for example) was 'found innocent '?

In reply to Rob Parsons:

So what are you arguing!?

Yes

(Possibly wrongly, but that a different matter)

In reply to MG:

Don't waste your time mate.

The presumption of innocence is the fundamental principle of common law jurisdictions. 

This is just semantic nonsense. I'm not sure why I've wasted my time on this. Someone else may be bang to rights but they aren't proven guilty they are in law innocent. That's the whole point of the burden lying with the prosecution.

In reply to Lrunner:

It is not semantic nonsense to understand that a 'not guilty' verdict is not a formal pronuncation of 'innocence' (as was, I think, your claim above.)

What is your rebuttal of point one in the legal blog I posted above?

In reply to MG:

Precisely that a verdict of 'not guilty' does not equate to a formal 'declaration of innocence'. 

In reply to Rob Parsons:

It's a distinction without a difference. No one has a "formal declaration of innocence".

In reply to MG:

Didn't the Government (Cameron?) try to limit compensation claims for miscarriages of justice to those who could prove they were innocent not just found not guilty. It was turned down by the (Supreme?) Court, but I think a split decision. 

In reply to RobAJones:

Fair point but I doubt it was ever the intention of a not guilty verdict.  "Not guilty  but we are going to treat you as a bit suspect nonetheless and it will cost you" is not, I suspect, what most courts think are concluding when they say "not guilty"