Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

testifying in writing

All matters involving criminal law

Re: testifying in writing

Postby Hairyloon » Fri Dec 16, 2016 7:50 pm

atticus wrote:I thought you might have a cunning plan. Stoaty's suggestion shows up how impractical your idea is.

It is perfectly practical, as you demonstrated earlier.
Except that imagine instead of you beginning the cross examination while I was having dinner, that I was sat waiting for it and thus replied straight away.

Try another angle on the question: what would you do if the witness was a deaf mute and did not know sign language? How would you have him testify?
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9315
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: testifying in writing

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Fri Dec 16, 2016 8:25 pm

But what would you do if the witness was also blind? And the jury were all illiterate, and the judge had a religious objection to things written down, and the court usher an allergy to paper?
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6113
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: testifying in writing

Postby Hairyloon » Fri Dec 16, 2016 10:22 pm

Smouldering Stoat wrote:But what would you do if the witness was also blind? And the jury were all illiterate, and the judge had a religious objection to things written down, and the court usher an allergy to paper?

Was there anything approximating to a point that you were wanting to try to make?
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9315
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: testifying in writing

Postby atticus » Fri Dec 16, 2016 10:37 pm

I could see it.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18638
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: testifying in writing

Postby shootist » Sat Dec 17, 2016 9:09 am

Smouldering Stoat wrote:But what would you do if the witness was also blind? And the jury were all illiterate, and the judge had a religious objection to things written down, and the court usher an allergy to paper?


A bag of whatifs contains an infinite variety of possibilities. A person capable of communicating by the spoken word would get short shrift from a judge for asking to be questioned and to give answers in writing. But if the need arose, for instance a person but recently struck deaf and dumb. it could, and would, be done.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3169
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: testifying in writing

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Sat Dec 17, 2016 9:51 am

shootist wrote:A bag of whatifs contains an infinite variety of possibilities.


Yes, that was my point.
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6113
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: testifying in writing

Postby Hairyloon » Sat Dec 17, 2016 10:55 am

Smouldering Stoat wrote:
shootist wrote:A bag of whatifs contains an infinite variety of possibilities.


Yes, that was my point.


Was there any purpose to making your point?
Did it in any way, shape or form advance the debate, or was it no more than a deliberate attempt to be an irritating little tit?

shootist wrote:A person capable of communicating by the spoken word would get short shrift from a judge for asking to be questioned and to give answers in writing.

That would surely depend upon the reasons for the request. OP has suggested such a need, but is not clear of the reasons. Nor need he be here, it would be between him and the judge.
However, as I have suggested before, if it were not for the fact that it is slower, and everyone is sat in court waiting for it, this seems to me to be a generally better way to do things. People place too much stock in face to face encounters: these confer the advantage to the charisma over the content.

But if the need arose, for instance a person but recently struck deaf and dumb. it could, and would, be done.

Can you suggest a better way than in writing?
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9315
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: testifying in writing

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Sat Dec 17, 2016 11:45 am

Hairyloon wrote:
Smouldering Stoat wrote:
shootist wrote:A bag of whatifs contains an infinite variety of possibilities.


Yes, that was my point.


Was there any purpose to making your point?
Did it in any way, shape or form advance the debate, or was it no more than a deliberate attempt to be an irritating little tit?


The point is, to use your own charming words, that it is the action of an irritating little tit to introduce pointless "Yes, but what if.." examples which derail debate: which is what you did. To almost every rule there may be exceptions where it does not apply, but to focus only upon those exceptions, in order to pretend that the rule itself does not exist, does not in any way shape or form advance the debate: it diverts it into pointless digressions, and you react with childish petulance when this is pointed out to you.
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6113
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: testifying in writing

Postby Hairyloon » Sat Dec 17, 2016 12:30 pm

Smouldering Stoat wrote:
Hairyloon wrote:
Smouldering Stoat wrote:
shootist wrote:A bag of whatifs contains an infinite variety of possibilities.


Yes, that was my point.


Was there any purpose to making your point?
Did it in any way, shape or form advance the debate, or was it no more than a deliberate attempt to be an irritating little tit?


The point is, to use your own charming words, that it is the action of an irritating little tit to introduce pointless "Yes, but what if.." examples which derail debate: which is what you did.

How can you fail to see the point of the example?
You were distracting the debate with an erroneous assertion that written testimony was entirely impractical, and that line wanted derailing.

OP asks if it is possible to testify in writing, you seek to say that it is not possible because you (speaking on behalf of the court) can't be arsed to think through the practicalities.
If the situation was such that you had to think through the practicalities, then you might realise how simple it could be.

The question then becomes: is it permissible? And the answer to that would depend upon why it is that they seek to do that.
We do not know, nor do we need to know because the answer would depend upon more detail than we probably want to know.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9315
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: testifying in writing

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Sat Dec 17, 2016 12:41 pm

And you call me irritating...
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6113
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Previous

Return to Crime

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest