This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I'm pretty disgusted with Cameron and I feel that the trial judge was quite right to criticise him for commenting whilst the legal process is stll effectively on going. Surely what Cameron has done amounts to contempt of court. We are now faced with the prospect of a lengthy and costly retrial.
What do the UKC legal eagles think?
What do the UKC legal eagles think?
In reply to mypyrex:
My own view is that I doubt any of his advisers even thought about the jury issue, and there must be questions over whether his civil servants or political advisers even thought this matter through. That is the shocking thing about it, and I find that poor.
My own view is that I doubt any of his advisers even thought about the jury issue, and there must be questions over whether his civil servants or political advisers even thought this matter through. That is the shocking thing about it, and I find that poor.
In reply to neilh:
You're probably right. But you would have thought that anyone with a bit of common sense - Prime Ministers included - would have known better than to comment publicly when there is still somebody effectively in the dock.
> My own view is that I doubt any of his advisers even thought about the jury issue, and there must be questions over whether his civil servants or political advisers even thought this matter through. That is the shocking thing about it, and I find that poor.
You're probably right. But you would have thought that anyone with a bit of common sense - Prime Ministers included - would have known better than to comment publicly when there is still somebody effectively in the dock.
In reply to mypyrex:
The retrial is not caused by Cameron's comments. If it happens it is the result of the failure of the jury to reach a conclusion.
Cameron apparently took legal advice before intervening. The most likely explanation seems to be that he was warned that if he made his comments the risk was that the defence would ask for a retrial and the judge might grant it which would be a political and media disaster.
.
Against that he had to balance the political and media backlash if he waited to apologise until after the final jury decisions.
So he took the view that the risk that the judge would uphold the defence request for a retrial was small. He was right.
> I'm pretty disgusted with Cameron and I feel that the trial judge was quite right to criticise him for commenting whilst the legal process is stll effectively on going. Surely what Cameron has done amounts to contempt of court. We are now faced with the prospect of a lengthy and costly retrial.
> What do the UKC legal eagles think?
The retrial is not caused by Cameron's comments. If it happens it is the result of the failure of the jury to reach a conclusion.
Cameron apparently took legal advice before intervening. The most likely explanation seems to be that he was warned that if he made his comments the risk was that the defence would ask for a retrial and the judge might grant it which would be a political and media disaster.
.
Against that he had to balance the political and media backlash if he waited to apologise until after the final jury decisions.
So he took the view that the risk that the judge would uphold the defence request for a retrial was small. He was right.
In reply to Postmanpat:
Equally he could have publicly said that he would comment after the legal processes had been finalised.
Bercow did at least warn the Commons at PMQ that aspects of the case were still sub judicae and that he would not allow comments or questions about those matters.
> Against that he had to balance the political and media backlash if he waited to apologise until after the final jury decisions.
Equally he could have publicly said that he would comment after the legal processes had been finalised.
Bercow did at least warn the Commons at PMQ that aspects of the case were still sub judicae and that he would not allow comments or questions about those matters.
In reply to Postmanpat:
Is that quite right? Would the judge not have sent the jury out again, if he had not felt strongly that one of the stumbling blocks to their arriving at a decision was because of remarks made by Cameron? The transcript of what the judge said makes it quite clear that he regarded Cameron as being at least in part to blame for the problem.
> The retrial is not caused by Cameron's comments. If it happens it is the result of the failure of the jury to reach a conclusion.
> Cameron apparently took legal advice before intervening. The most likely explanation seems to be that he was warned that if he made his comments the risk was that the defence would ask for a retrial and the judge might grant it which would be a political and media disaster.
Is that quite right? Would the judge not have sent the jury out again, if he had not felt strongly that one of the stumbling blocks to their arriving at a decision was because of remarks made by Cameron? The transcript of what the judge said makes it quite clear that he regarded Cameron as being at least in part to blame for the problem.
In reply to mypyrex:
> Equally he could have publicly said that he would comment after the legal processes had been finalised.
>
Yes,and rationally that seems the sensible thing to do. But you and I know he would have faced 14 hours of baying journalists and opposition politicians demanding he speak and then have looked like he had been dragged kicking and screaming into making the apology.In reply to Postmanpat:
Not at all, if he had simply said words to the effect of 'I shall make a statement as soon as the trial is finished.'
Not at all, if he had simply said words to the effect of 'I shall make a statement as soon as the trial is finished.'
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Which bit? I've not seen a transcript of his words when he discharged the jury.
> Is that quite right? Would the judge not have sent the jury out again, if he had not felt strongly that one of the stumbling blocks to their arriving at a decision was because of remarks made by Cameron? The transcript of what the judge said makes it quite clear that he regarded Cameron as being at least in part to blame for the problem.
Which bit? I've not seen a transcript of his words when he discharged the jury.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
I think you're being optimistic in the extreme if you think that would have kept the hounds at bay.
> Not at all, if he had simply said words to the effect of 'I shall make a statement as soon as the trial is finished.'
I think you're being optimistic in the extreme if you think that would have kept the hounds at bay.
In reply to mypyrex: Cameron has previous form with opening his mouth before trials are concluded, and being admonished by the trial judge as a result:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10513680/David-Cameron...
In reply to Postmanpat: 14 hours of people saying mean things about you should hardly be a strange or unsurvivable experience for any senior politician these days. An intelligent person would have declined to comment until the time was appropriate, and explained why. If people chose to criticise that, it would say more about them than about him. As it is...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10513680/David-Cameron...
In reply to Postmanpat: 14 hours of people saying mean things about you should hardly be a strange or unsurvivable experience for any senior politician these days. An intelligent person would have declined to comment until the time was appropriate, and explained why. If people chose to criticise that, it would say more about them than about him. As it is...
In reply to Martin W:
Well as it is we'll never know. Likelihood seems that the judge's comments will blow over more or as quickly as the alternative but in both cases a certain amount of mud will stick.
> In reply to Postmanpat: 14 hours of people saying mean things about you should hardly be a strange or unsurvivable experience for any senior politician these days. An intelligent person would have declined to comment until the time was appropriate, and explained why. If people chose to criticise that, it would say more about them than about him. As it is…
Well as it is we'll never know. Likelihood seems that the judge's comments will blow over more or as quickly as the alternative but in both cases a certain amount of mud will stick.
In reply to Postmanpat:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28021211
> Which bit? I've not seen a transcript of his words when he discharged the jury.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28021211
In reply to Postmanpat:
It's supposed to be his job to do the right thing, regardless of what the baying mob might be demanding.
> I think you're being optimistic in the extreme if you think that would have kept the hounds at bay.
It's supposed to be his job to do the right thing, regardless of what the baying mob might be demanding.
In reply to Postmanpat:
I think everyone who's interested in the topic should read the article by Peter Oborne of the Daily Telegraph that Douglas Griffin posted on the other thread:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/10925485/Prime-Ministe...
(He doesn't let the opposition off the hook either.)
> Well as it is we'll never know. Likelihood seems that the judge's comments will blow over more or as quickly as the alternative but in both cases a certain amount of mud will stick.
I think everyone who's interested in the topic should read the article by Peter Oborne of the Daily Telegraph that Douglas Griffin posted on the other thread:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/10925485/Prime-Ministe...
(He doesn't let the opposition off the hook either.)
In reply to mypyrex:
I might have watched too much House of Cards, but maybe it's all part of bigger game/deal...
Coulson agrees to be the fall-guy, but by 'accidentally' dropping a clanger, the PM causes the case to go to re-trial and a prison term is effectively reduced to a good ticking off.
A couple of rogue journos/private-eyes further down the food chain are sent down for appearances sake.
Leveson inquiry doesn't really get anywhere.
Net effect:
Murdoch's relatively happy, and so continues to back the Tories at the next general election.
Cameron and person mate Rebecca gets acquitted, but hence forth is even deeper in the Tory pockets.
Status Quo is maintained.
Milliband can't really say very much - given half a chance he would have cosied-up to Murdoch's gang in exactly the same way.
I might have watched too much House of Cards, but maybe it's all part of bigger game/deal...
Coulson agrees to be the fall-guy, but by 'accidentally' dropping a clanger, the PM causes the case to go to re-trial and a prison term is effectively reduced to a good ticking off.
A couple of rogue journos/private-eyes further down the food chain are sent down for appearances sake.
Leveson inquiry doesn't really get anywhere.
Net effect:
Murdoch's relatively happy, and so continues to back the Tories at the next general election.
Cameron and person mate Rebecca gets acquitted, but hence forth is even deeper in the Tory pockets.
Status Quo is maintained.
Milliband can't really say very much - given half a chance he would have cosied-up to Murdoch's gang in exactly the same way.
In reply to FrankBooth:
AFAIAA no-one is suggesting that Coulson be re-tried for the offence of which he was found guilty by the jury and for which he is awaiting sentence. The re-trials that people are currently discussing are for those charges for which the jury failed to reach a verdict.
I imagine Coulson may be mulling an appeal against this week's conviction, though, if his briefs believe that grounds can be offered. It probably partly depends how much further Murdoch is obliged to fund his legal costs now that the first trial is concluded (AIUI he sued News International when they tried to renege on their promise to pay any legal costs he may incur as a result of the phone hacking scandal - IIRC it was part of the deal which secured his resignation).
Already happened, although there are more trials in the pipeline.
Already happened.
They're touring for most of the rest of this year: http://www.statusquo.co.uk/tourdates.html#.U600DvldUWI
> Coulson agrees to be the fall-guy, but by 'accidentally' dropping a clanger, the PM causes the case to go to re-trial and a prison term is effectively reduced to a good ticking off.
AFAIAA no-one is suggesting that Coulson be re-tried for the offence of which he was found guilty by the jury and for which he is awaiting sentence. The re-trials that people are currently discussing are for those charges for which the jury failed to reach a verdict.
I imagine Coulson may be mulling an appeal against this week's conviction, though, if his briefs believe that grounds can be offered. It probably partly depends how much further Murdoch is obliged to fund his legal costs now that the first trial is concluded (AIUI he sued News International when they tried to renege on their promise to pay any legal costs he may incur as a result of the phone hacking scandal - IIRC it was part of the deal which secured his resignation).
> A couple of rogue journos/private-eyes further down the food chain are sent down for appearances sake.
Already happened, although there are more trials in the pipeline.
> Leveson inquiry doesn't really get anywhere.
Already happened.
> Net effect:
> Status Quo is maintained.
They're touring for most of the rest of this year: http://www.statusquo.co.uk/tourdates.html#.U600DvldUWI
In reply to mypyrex:
Can someone explain what he has supposedly done wrong. Coulson was convicted of a crime before Cameron spoke. That's all he made reference to. How does this potentially compromise the verdict on other charges?
(And if this possibility was really so important, why didn't the judge arrange for all verdicts to arrive together?)
Can someone explain what he has supposedly done wrong. Coulson was convicted of a crime before Cameron spoke. That's all he made reference to. How does this potentially compromise the verdict on other charges?
(And if this possibility was really so important, why didn't the judge arrange for all verdicts to arrive together?)
In reply to mypyrex:
Well the reason given is acutally "He has now told the public and therefore the jury that he was given assurances by Mr Coulson before he employed him which turned out to be untrue. The jury were not aware of that before and it is a matter which is capable of affecting Mr Coulson's credibility in their eyes."
Which is cobblers. The jury knew Coulson has given these assurances and it was the jury themselves that determined they were untrue!
Well the reason given is acutally "He has now told the public and therefore the jury that he was given assurances by Mr Coulson before he employed him which turned out to be untrue. The jury were not aware of that before and it is a matter which is capable of affecting Mr Coulson's credibility in their eyes."
Which is cobblers. The jury knew Coulson has given these assurances and it was the jury themselves that determined they were untrue!
In reply to mypyrex:
Liar employs liar and has full confidence in his mendacity shock.
D
> I'm pretty disgusted with Cameron
Liar employs liar and has full confidence in his mendacity shock.
D
In reply to tony:
Indeed. I think postmanpat is possibly letting his political leanings influence his opinion (something everybody does).
> It's supposed to be his job to do the right thing, regardless of what the baying mob might be demanding.
Indeed. I think postmanpat is possibly letting his political leanings influence his opinion (something everybody does).
Post edited at 12:54
In reply to MG:
When Cameron made his statement the jury was still considering its verdict on two other counts. The very fact that they had failed to reach a unanimous decision and had been sent back to try to reach a majority verdict indicates that there was a lot of debate going on in the jury room, which could have been swayed by statements made by people in positions of influence and/or authority such as the Prime Minister of the country.
Perhaps it didn't occur to the judge that someone in Cameron's position would display such a monumental lack of judgement as to comment on a trial before it was concluded? It is pretty standard operating practice for courts to accept verdicts from juries on separate counts as they are reached. It's arguably part of the process of ensuring that trials are fair and open ie people can see what's going on as it happens rather than being left in the dark until the very end (which would also leave the process open to accusations of secret deals etc).
> Can someone explain what he has supposedly done wrong. Coulson was convicted of a crime before Cameron spoke.
When Cameron made his statement the jury was still considering its verdict on two other counts. The very fact that they had failed to reach a unanimous decision and had been sent back to try to reach a majority verdict indicates that there was a lot of debate going on in the jury room, which could have been swayed by statements made by people in positions of influence and/or authority such as the Prime Minister of the country.
> why didn't the judge arrange for all verdicts to arrive together?)
Perhaps it didn't occur to the judge that someone in Cameron's position would display such a monumental lack of judgement as to comment on a trial before it was concluded? It is pretty standard operating practice for courts to accept verdicts from juries on separate counts as they are reached. It's arguably part of the process of ensuring that trials are fair and open ie people can see what's going on as it happens rather than being left in the dark until the very end (which would also leave the process open to accusations of secret deals etc).
In reply to Timmd:
Personally I think that the criticism of Cameron is bizarre. All the world and his dog were commenting on the verdicts, which had been openly and widely reported. As a political issue it was understandable that Cameron wanted to make a statement asap, rather than appear evasive by saying he'd given one later.
If the judge didn't like that, he should have been sensible enough to foresee it and either quarantine the jury or delay the announcement of the earlier verdicts.
Personally I think that the criticism of Cameron is bizarre. All the world and his dog were commenting on the verdicts, which had been openly and widely reported. As a political issue it was understandable that Cameron wanted to make a statement asap, rather than appear evasive by saying he'd given one later.
If the judge didn't like that, he should have been sensible enough to foresee it and either quarantine the jury or delay the announcement of the earlier verdicts.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
The judge instructed Rebekah Brooks not to comment until after the remaining verdicts were announced. She managed to do what she was told. Perhaps the judge didn't realise how stupid Cameron is, despite the fact that he's got previous for commenting when he shouldn't.
> If the judge didn't like that, he should have been sensible enough to foresee it and either quarantine the jury or delay the announcement of the earlier verdicts.
The judge instructed Rebekah Brooks not to comment until after the remaining verdicts were announced. She managed to do what she was told. Perhaps the judge didn't realise how stupid Cameron is, despite the fact that he's got previous for commenting when he shouldn't.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Cameron is the PM not every man and his dog. His opinion would a)be more widely reported and b)treated with greater weight than the average dog.
All he needed to do was state since the jury was still out he couldnt comment.
The UK doesnt have jury sequestration any more does it? Announcement of the verdicts as they happen is also the norm so I am not sure why a judge should have to create new procedures just because Cameron doesnt have the sense not to comment.
> Personally I think that the criticism of Cameron is bizarre. All the world and his dog were commenting on the verdicts, which had been openly and widely reported.
Cameron is the PM not every man and his dog. His opinion would a)be more widely reported and b)treated with greater weight than the average dog.
> As a political issue it was understandable that Cameron wanted to make a statement asap, rather than appear evasive by saying he'd given one later.
All he needed to do was state since the jury was still out he couldnt comment.
> If the judge didn't like that, he should have been sensible enough to foresee it and either quarantine the jury or delay the announcement of the earlier verdicts.
The UK doesnt have jury sequestration any more does it? Announcement of the verdicts as they happen is also the norm so I am not sure why a judge should have to create new procedures just because Cameron doesnt have the sense not to comment.
In reply to dissonance:
Politicians already have a bad enough reputation for avoiding answering the question.
Apparently his statement was cleared beforehand by the Attorney General, which means it is the AG who should be blamed if anyone. Anyway, the verdicts were headline news on most news outlets, with large numbers of people commenting.
Were the jury expected to be watching the TV evening news and reading newspapers while still considering their verdicts on the outstanding charges? If they were it is almost inevitable that they'd encounter relevant "comment", if they weren't then they would likely not have learned what Cameron said anyhow.
It seems to me that the main fault is with the judge who didn't think this through.
> All he needed to do was state since the jury was still out he couldnt comment.
Politicians already have a bad enough reputation for avoiding answering the question.
> ... just because Cameron doesnt have the sense not to comment.
Apparently his statement was cleared beforehand by the Attorney General, which means it is the AG who should be blamed if anyone. Anyway, the verdicts were headline news on most news outlets, with large numbers of people commenting.
Were the jury expected to be watching the TV evening news and reading newspapers while still considering their verdicts on the outstanding charges? If they were it is almost inevitable that they'd encounter relevant "comment", if they weren't then they would likely not have learned what Cameron said anyhow.
It seems to me that the main fault is with the judge who didn't think this through.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Good job. Blame someone else. Avoid taking responsibility.
The judge had this to say:
He [Cameron] has now told the public and therefore the jury that he was given assurances by Mr. Coulson before he employed him which turned out to be untrue. The jury were not aware of that before and it is a matter which is capable of affecting Mr. Coulson’s credibility in their eyes. Mr. Coulson’s credibility is a matter which is in issue on the final two charges that the jury have to consider.
> Politicians already have a bad enough reputation for avoiding answering the question.
> Apparently his statement was cleared beforehand by the Attorney General, which means it is the AG who should be blamed if anyone. Anyway, the verdicts were headline news on most news outlets, with large numbers of people commenting.
Good job. Blame someone else. Avoid taking responsibility.
The judge had this to say:
He [Cameron] has now told the public and therefore the jury that he was given assurances by Mr. Coulson before he employed him which turned out to be untrue. The jury were not aware of that before and it is a matter which is capable of affecting Mr. Coulson’s credibility in their eyes. Mr. Coulson’s credibility is a matter which is in issue on the final two charges that the jury have to consider.
In reply to tony:
Yes, but as above, it was the jury that had decided those assurances were untrue. All Cameron was doing was taking their verdict. It was only that that allowed Cameron apologise because he had been lied to. The whole thing is nonsense - the verdict Cameron was commenting on had been delivered and he made no comment on the further questioned being considered.
Yes, but as above, it was the jury that had decided those assurances were untrue. All Cameron was doing was taking their verdict. It was only that that allowed Cameron apologise because he had been lied to. The whole thing is nonsense - the verdict Cameron was commenting on had been delivered and he made no comment on the further questioned being considered.
In reply to tony:
Yes, that is indeed what the judge is doing. Surely the judge realised that the verdicts would be all over the TV news? Surely he realised that the jury might watch those bulletins?
Oh come on, everyone (who watches the news) was aware of previous statements by Cameron that he'd received assurances of innocence from Coulson.
> Good job. Blame someone else. Avoid taking responsibility. The judge had this to say:
Yes, that is indeed what the judge is doing. Surely the judge realised that the verdicts would be all over the TV news? Surely he realised that the jury might watch those bulletins?
> "He [Cameron] has now told the public and therefore the jury that he was given assurances by Mr. Coulson
> before he employed him which turned out to be untrue. The jury were not aware of that before ..."
> before he employed him which turned out to be untrue. The jury were not aware of that before ..."
Oh come on, everyone (who watches the news) was aware of previous statements by Cameron that he'd received assurances of innocence from Coulson.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Make your mind up. Is it the AG or the judge to blame?
> Yes, that is indeed what the judge is doing.
Make your mind up. Is it the AG or the judge to blame?
In reply to tony:
The judge is certainly to blame, being self-important and precious. The courts have oodles of excessive rules about not letting the delicate ears of the jurors hear things, which don't apply in the real world.
As for the AG, *if* there was anything wrong with the statement (which I am not convinced of) then the AG is at fault for not pointing it out when consulted.
> Make your mind up. Is it the AG or the judge to blame?
The judge is certainly to blame, being self-important and precious. The courts have oodles of excessive rules about not letting the delicate ears of the jurors hear things, which don't apply in the real world.
As for the AG, *if* there was anything wrong with the statement (which I am not convinced of) then the AG is at fault for not pointing it out when consulted.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
What a daft comment.... legal research showed juries are influenced by such announcements which is why the system takes great care over this. The judge isn't being precious, he is upholding the law.
I'm sure the AG advice relates to avoiding consequencies given the political impetus was to comment early (strictly speaking in contempt but unlikely to be 'called' on it). Any blame is with Cameron and his political advisors. The same would apply to his choice not to vet Coulson (like every previous person in his position was) or not to drop him as a political advisor once elected (without Coulson or an equivalent we would have a labour government or lab-lib government now but they didnt need to keep him on)
What a daft comment.... legal research showed juries are influenced by such announcements which is why the system takes great care over this. The judge isn't being precious, he is upholding the law.
I'm sure the AG advice relates to avoiding consequencies given the political impetus was to comment early (strictly speaking in contempt but unlikely to be 'called' on it). Any blame is with Cameron and his political advisors. The same would apply to his choice not to vet Coulson (like every previous person in his position was) or not to drop him as a political advisor once elected (without Coulson or an equivalent we would have a labour government or lab-lib government now but they didnt need to keep him on)
In reply to Coel Hellier:
When I think about it, Cameron did say he was on Team Nigella when there was the trail between her and Charles Saatchi, so it could have been a rebuke with that in mind, it being the second trial he'd made comments about.
I suppose it depends on what one thinks of as reasonable and sensible in the end. With Cameron being PM, what he says carries a certain amount of weight (in theory-depending on your view of him), so I can see why the Judge wasn't impressed, even if other people were also commenting. Technically you're right about what the judge could have done.
> Personally I think that the criticism of Cameron is bizarre. All the world and his dog were commenting on the verdicts, which had been openly and widely reported. As a political issue it was understandable that Cameron wanted to make a statement asap, rather than appear evasive by saying he'd given one later.
> If the judge didn't like that, he should have been sensible enough to foresee it and either quarantine the jury or delay the announcement of the earlier verdicts.
When I think about it, Cameron did say he was on Team Nigella when there was the trail between her and Charles Saatchi, so it could have been a rebuke with that in mind, it being the second trial he'd made comments about.
I suppose it depends on what one thinks of as reasonable and sensible in the end. With Cameron being PM, what he says carries a certain amount of weight (in theory-depending on your view of him), so I can see why the Judge wasn't impressed, even if other people were also commenting. Technically you're right about what the judge could have done.
Post edited at 00:40
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...