Is the Government GUILTY of sub judice re the riots?

[kimba]

Is the Government GUILTY of sub judice in the wake of the rioters being arrested, charged, warrented or summoned to court, by getting involved or making comment on the courts process, regarding the severity of the sentencings the Courts should dish out, and the media then reporting on such comments?

 

In law, sub judice, Latin for "under judgment", means that a particular case or matter is currently under trial or being considered by a judge or court. The term may be used synonymously with "the present case" or "the case at bar" by some lawyers.

 

In England and Wales, Ireland,New Zealand, Australia, India, Pakistan, Canada, Sri Lanka, and Israel it is generally considered inappropriate to comment publicly on cases sub judice, which can be an offence in itself, leading to contempt of court proceedings. This is particularly true in criminal cases, where publicly discussing cases sub judice may constitute interference with due process.

 

In English law, the term was correctly used to describe material which would prejudice court proceedings by publication before 1981. Sub judice is now irrelevant to journalists because of the introduction of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Under Section 2 of the Act, a substantial risk of serious prejudice can only be created by a media report when proceedings are active. Proceedings become active when there's an arrest, oral charge, issue of a warrant, or a summons.

I shall tell you when it gets scary, when the chief of Police is on the news saying they will get the bloke for Murder who drove into the 3 people in Birmingham.

 

I can already hear the keyboards going before I have even put this but... Who is to say that it was Murder ?

 

The press, the chief of Police (or whatever high rank he was), The politicians and the Muslim communities thought Britain have already decided that it was Murder, and not only will the person they get for it no doubt now be found guilty (as everyone who has seen anything in the media will not think 'guilty') but the sentence will be a high one regardless of whether guilty of that charge or not.

 

Why do I suggest something so stupid that he may be innocent of Murder?

Well why not, its innocent until proven guilty after all, we don't have trials by media without hearing both sides like in this case, and was it me in the dock I would make a big stink up about just how much the establishment has already suggested any outcome to the case.

 

Here is my reasoning for not thinking that this is an open and shut case, Supposing your in your car, or a car, and your driving down a road and bump into crowds of people with weapons and all you have seen for the last 24 hours on the news is people getting dragged off bikes and out of cars and beat , or just having missiles launched at them.

Supposing in this instance you panic and put the foot down, does that then make you a Murderer or someone in a situation where your in fear of your life and instinctively just want to get out of it ?

 

The point is that none of us actually know until the person is questioned on it, no one should make the assumption that the people run over were protecting the community, no one should definitely be in the media saying we are 'going to get them' in the same breath as saying that its murder as has been done in the media to date.

Unless you were there you should have an open mind about it. Listen to the evidence and then decide.

 

How many people here actually think it was anything less than Murder just from what they have been told about it ?

 

How many think that there could be a fair trial for anyone caught ?

 

The Police have already arrested 7 or so, they will be out to get someone for this and I sure don't think they will settle for any manslaughter charge or death by reckless driving. This is Murder, and we heard it from the top, even before hearing a shred of evidence in a court of law.

[Frank Sidney]

I shall tell you when it gets scary, when the chief of Police is on the news saying they will get the bloke for Murder who drove into the 3 people in Birmingham.

 

I can already hear the keyboards going before I have even put this but... Who is to say that it was Murder ?

 

The press, the chief of Police (or whatever high rank he was), The politicians and the Muslim communities thought Britain have already decided that it was Murder, and not only will the person they get for it no doubt now be found guilty (as everyone who has seen anything in the media will not think 'guilty') but the sentence will be a high one regardless of whether guilty of that charge or not.

 

Why do I suggest something so stupid that he may be innocent of Murder?

Well why not, its innocent until proven guilty after all, we don't have trials by media without hearing both sides like in this case, and was it me in the dock I would make a big stink up about just how much the establishment has already suggested any outcome to the case.

 

Here is my reasoning for not thinking that this is an open and shut case, Supposing your in your car, or a car, and your driving down a road and bump into crowds of people with weapons and all you have seen for the last 24 hours on the news is people getting dragged off bikes and out of cars and beat , or just having missiles launched at them.

Supposing in this instance you panic and put the foot down, does that then make you a Murderer or someone in a situation where your in fear of your life and instinctively just want to get out of it ?

 

The point is that none of us actually know until the person is questioned on it, no one should make the assumption that the people run over were protecting the community, no one should definitely be in the media saying we are 'going to get them' in the same breath as saying that its murder as has been done in the media to date.

Unless you were there you should have an open mind about it. Listen to the evidence and then decide.

 

How many people here actually think it was anything less than Murder just from what they have been told about it ?

 

How many think that there could be a fair trial for anyone caught ?

 

The Police have already arrested 7 or so, they will be out to get someone for this and I sure don't think they will settle for any manslaughter charge or death by reckless driving. This is Murder, and we heard it from the top, even before hearing a shred of evidence in a court of law.

 

That's all fair enough but there were numerous witnesses I think...Although, I do accept that the police will be going all out to get a conviction because it will quell any retaliation.

 

IMO this area will suffer the next riots. But it won't be as before. I reckon there's going to be a lot of trouble between Asian and Black gangs to come. Once the dust has settled, it will kick off..

[kimba]

That's all fair enough but there were numerous witnesses I think...Although, I do accept that the police will be going all out to get a conviction because it will quell any retaliation.

 

IMO this area will suffer the next riots. But it won't be as before. I reckon there's going to be a lot of trouble between Asian and Black gangs to come. Once the dust has settled, it will kick off..

Like you said numerous witnesses but all from the same community, all not happy that someone from another community has killed 3 of their own, and who knows what was actually going through the minds of the people allegedly walking the streets tooled up to protect property ?

 

That's why its so dangerous to take the law into your own hands in a vigilante manor. Now I know that some places the lack of police protection would have offered them little alternative, and I also would have been out on my streets ready to protect whats ours, but the boundaries are very obscured in situations like that and no one knows who is on what side and accidents can happen through panic.

 

Lets not forget the man could be innocent and until we stop watching the news about it and get the facts in a court of law, and hear both sides, we will not know.

 

What is not good is for us to overlook that walking the streets in a vigilante manor is not legal and to not look at everything that happened and just go for this man who killed those people gives out the wrong message and supersedes everything else including the fact that communities felt failed by the law.

Its easy to get a scapegoat and ignore what went off, but if the man is innocent of what they accuse him of then its a real shame and we fail once again when we should be trying to sort things out.

[tinfoilhat]

These "vigilantes" were stood in the pavement. While we are wildly speculating its just as easy to speculate they'd run over a woman and two kids.

[kimba]

These "vigilantes" were stood in the pavement. While we are wildly speculating its just as easy to speculate they'd run over a woman and two kids.

Its ok folks, someone on SF who was there,

 

maybe you could describe the scene a little more for us, how many where in the car ect ?

[tinfoilhat]

You did a full list of why they weren't guilty so you must know more than me. I merely offered another point of view, equally unsubstantiated.

[kimba]

You did a full list of why they weren't guilty so you must know more than me. I merely offered another point of view, equally unsubstantiated.

Nope, I think youll find I put an alternative to what we are told HAS happened. And I may add put that we won't know until the evidence is heard in a court of law.

 

What you put was matter of fact.

 

Questions:

Did they hit the 3 people on a pavement ?

Was there anyone else in the road that they may have been trying to avoid ?

Was the drive in fear for his/her or his/her passengers life ?

Could the driver have been able to tell the difference between rioter and defender of the community ?

Were the people rioting or defending the community ?

 

Until we know all the answers I think it dangerous to make presumptions, especially in the media and by top leaders of the establishment (on here by people who don't really give a hoot either way does not matter).

[tinfoilhat]

I read they were on the pavement in the Indy. I didn't make it up or realise I had to justify with a link, or put citation needed after every statement. If you want that, tough.

 

However these are things I know. I know 3 men died. I know they were runover outside a shop. I know 4 men have been charged with murder. Note "charged". They are not just persons of interest, or just arrested and vilified by the press like jo yeates ( spelling ?) landlord. They are about to go through a lengthy and expensive court case, one, if they don't convict or worse, convict the wrong people on or both communities are going to kick off big time. They won't want to get this wrong. They will also be judged by 12 of their peers.

 

I don't know if they vigilantes, you seem to know that, not sure what you base it on. That's up for debate. Forensics and/or CCTV will categorically say if they were on the pavement though.

[kimba]

I read they were on the pavement in the Indy. I didn't make it up or realise I had to justify with a link, or put citation needed after every statement. If you want that, tough.

 

However these are things I know. I know 3 men died. I know they were runover outside a shop. I know 4 men have been charged with murder. Note "charged". They are not just persons of interest, or just arrested and vilified by the press like jo yeates ( spelling ?) landlord. They are about to go through a lengthy and expensive court case, one, if they don't convict or worse, convict the wrong people on or both communities are going to kick off big time. They won't want to get this wrong. They will also be judged by 12 of their peers.

 

I don't know if they vigilantes, you seem to know that, not sure what you base it on. That's up for debate. Forensics and/or CCTV will categorically say if they were on the pavement though.

 

Nothing is up for debate, that seems to be the problem.

 

Who ever they get for this has already had the chief of police state it was Murder on TV, your telling me that you read that they were on the pavement which automatically gives the impression that they were targeted.

 

Now the father did a really courageous gesture at the height of the riots by asking for calm, something that coming home late off a holiday could not command. He in the worst day of his life managed to show humility that most of us could not dream of and it was that band wagon that Politicians and leaders of the Police wished to be associated with, and if that means charging a bloke with Murder rather than accept that it could have been anything else, then so be it.

 

I feel that the media has already got the outcome to any would be trial, sure the Police have made arrest after arrest (and will carry on until they think they have the right person) but they won't be asking the CPS for anything less than Murder now that their leader has put his neck out, no matter what statement they get in way of defense.

 

Im not trying to get at yourself, and my earlier post was a bit condescending, but it was only because everyone who has something to say on this just seems to quote what the media is saying and carrying it on in a matter of fact manor.

 

This isn't the justice I know, and would have not welcomed any of this media linching in any trial I was ever in.

[tinfoilhat]

If it was on the pavement, and as you say it's still technically an if, and the cars steering didn't freak out and it was on purpose it should be murder. The media attention given is warranted but as always the way it's been done hasn't been great - we can blame 24hour news for that. Im not sure that police would charge someone with murder ( even in these circumstances) but wouldn't be surprised either.

 

But you are right, trial by media and/or a wrong conviction serves nobody.