Lee Rigby-Accused say they're not guilty

[AdamSmith]

C'mon Adam, it's precisely for trials of this nature that we bother with the 'niceties'!

 

And give their sympathetic barristers the joy of receiving the huge legal aid payments! I know we have to be seen to jump through the hoops for the sake of fairness and law but surely there is a better way in clear cut cases ????? This is clear cut isn't it?????

[angos]

If it's a defence for murder then someone better let Peter Sutcliffe out of Broadmoor with a fulsome apology.

 

In criminal prosecutions under the common law, a defendant may raise a defense in an attempt to avoid criminal liability. Besides contesting the accuracy of any allegation made against him in a criminal proceeding, a defendant may also make allegations against the prosecutor or plaintiff or raise a defense, arguing that, even if the allegations against the defendant are true, the defendant is nevertheless not liable.

 

Since a defense is raised by the defendant in a direct attempt to avoid what would otherwise result in liability, the defendant typically holds the burden of proof. For example, if a defendant in a murder case attempts to claim provocation, they would have to prove they were provoked.

 

In this case they can easily prove they were provoked when the UK bombed their fellow Muslims, and they can prove that Gods word justifies there actions.

[boyfriday]

And give their sympathetic barristers the joy of receiving the huge legal aid payments!

Can a legally aided defendant choose their barrister and will their fees be capped?

I know we have to be seen to jump through the hoops for the sake of fairness and law but surely there is a better way in clear cut cases ????? This is clear cut isn't it?????

 

Well it won't be a lengthy trial at the taxpayers expense so at least there's that benefit.

[angos]

 

I didn't suggest they would, but it's pointless submitting a defence which isn't accepted in law..eg self defence, provocation, mistaken identity, diminished responsibility etc

 

They can easily claim, Self-defense is a countermeasure that involves defending oneself, one's property, or the well-being of another from harm

 

Provocation alleging a sudden or temporary loss of control as a response to another's provocative conduct sufficient to justify an acquittal, a mitigated sentence or a conviction for a lesser charge.

 

 

Or diminished responsibility, the God that the court regognises told them to do it, how can a human not do what they are told to do by God.

[truman]

Or diminished responsibility, the God that the court regognises told them to do it, how can a human not do what they are told to do by God.

 

How do they prove that?

[boyfriday]

In criminal prosecutions under the common law, a defendant may raise a defense in an attempt to avoid criminal liability. Besides contesting the accuracy of any allegation made against him in a criminal proceeding, a defendant may also make allegations against the prosecutor or plaintiff or raise a defense, arguing that, even if the allegations against the defendant are true, the defendant is nevertheless not liable.

 

Since a defense is raised by the defendant in a direct attempt to avoid what would otherwise result in liability, the defendant typically holds the burden of proof. For example, if a defendant in a murder case attempts to claim provocation, they would have to prove they were provoked.

 

In this case they can easily prove they were provoked when the UK bombed their fellow Muslims, and they can prove that Gods word justifies there actions.

 

Good luck taking Wikipaedia in court with you, with that rapier insight into the salient parts you could easily get them off

 

---------- Post added 27-09-2013 at 15:39 ----------

 

They can easily claim, Self-defense is a countermeasure that involves defending oneself, one's property, or the well-being of another from harm

 

Provocation alleging a sudden or temporary loss of control as a response to another's provocative conduct sufficient to justify an acquittal, a mitigated sentence or a conviction for a lesser charge.

 

 

Or diminished responsibility, the God that the court regognises told them to do it, how can a human not do what they are told to do by God.

 

 

You're forgetting one significant thing..it's isn't their assessment that's important, they have to convince a judge and jury.

[angos]

How do they prove that?

 

They don't need to prove the existence of God because the court already recognises Gods existence.

 

They already know what God as said because it is written in a book.

 

If they can show that their actions were justified by God then they were simple acting on the wishes of God.

[SevenRivers]

Probably be taken as an opportunity to air their views which is excellent...let them tell the truth of their ideology for the world to hear.

[truman]

They don't need to prove the existence of God because the court already recognises Gods existence.

 

They already know what God as said because it is written in a book.

 

If they can show that their actions were justified by God then they were simple acting on the wishes of God.

 

It's written that they can murder is it?

[angos]

Good luck taking Wikipaedia in court with you, with that rapier insight into the salient parts you could easily get them off

 

 

You're forgetting one significant thing..it's isn't their assessment that's important, they have to convince a judge and jury.

 

I'm not going to court and I'm not forgetting anything, I'm just giving an opinion on a possible defence they might try to use, which based on your op is what the thread is about.