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

Was Fred West "innocent"?

All matters involving criminal law

Re: Was Fred West "innocent"?

Postby atticus » Tue Feb 06, 2018 4:17 pm

dls: have you ever heard of such a thing?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20274
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Was Fred West "innocent"?

Postby theycantdothat » Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:03 pm

I think you have to distinguish between (a) has x committed a crime? and (b) has x been convicted of a crime?

Whether x has committed a crime depends on whether he did a certain act and if the law says that that act is a crime. If the two conditions are fulfilled there has been a crime whether or not anyone gets to know about it and irrespective of the amount of proof available to secure a conviction.

Whether x has been convicted of a crime depends on the outcome of a court case. A conviction does not tell us that the crime was definitely committed.

The presumption of innocence is not equivalent to saying that you did not commit the crime until convicted. It is about the prosecution making its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
theycantdothat
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:36 pm

Re: Was Fred West "innocent"?

Postby atticus » Wed Feb 07, 2018 9:26 am

shooter wrote:There is a case somewhere that speaks of 'beyond reasonable doubt' and seems to cast doubt upon that expression applying in UK law. Perhaps one of the illuminated could dig it out for us.
A request on twitter to my various criminal law practitioner friends has produced this result:
Attachments
que.jpg
que.jpg (6.11 KiB) Viewed 47 times
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20274
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Was Fred West "innocent"?

Postby shootist » Wed Feb 07, 2018 10:50 am

atticus wrote:
shooter wrote:There is a case somewhere that speaks of 'beyond reasonable doubt' and seems to cast doubt upon that expression applying in UK law. Perhaps one of the illuminated could dig it out for us.
A request on twitter to my various criminal law practitioner friends has produced this result:


Well, it's nice to find out the source of many of your opinions, Basil.
"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: 3694
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Was Fred West "innocent"?

Postby atticus » Wed Feb 07, 2018 10:51 am

It is a good way of communicating with a good many lawyers, shooter. It all depends on who you engage with. There are a good many lawyers on twitter, ranging from retired Court of Appeal judges to students, and all levels in between. I follow many, and many follow me. As a result, there are many interesting discussions about legal matters.

Other members here regularly post about things they have picked up from that source.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20274
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Was Fred West "innocent"?

Postby Hairyloon » Wed Feb 07, 2018 1:12 pm

atticus wrote:It is a good way of communicating with a good many lawyers, shooter...

I concur. It is a platform with great potential if only it could be properly made accountable and transparent in the accounting.
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10311
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Was Fred West "innocent"?

Postby atticus » Wed Feb 07, 2018 2:05 pm

In the meantime, has shooter remembered what it was that led him to say that about "beyond reasonable doubt"? We may be able to clear up any confusion if he can.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20274
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Was Fred West "innocent"?

Postby theycantdothat » Wed Feb 07, 2018 3:52 pm

shootist wrote:There is a case somewhere that speaks of 'beyond reasonable doubt' and seems to cast doubt upon that expression applying in UK law. Perhaps one of the illuminated could dig it out for us.


Found this quote from the famous Golden Thread speech which says the opposite:

"Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to... the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception. If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner... the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained."

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolmington_v_DPP
theycantdothat
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:36 pm

Re: Was Fred West "innocent"?

Postby shootist » Wed Feb 07, 2018 3:52 pm

atticus wrote:In the meantime, has shooter remembered what it was that led him to say that about "beyond reasonable doubt"? We may be able to clear up any confusion if he can.


No. It was more of a question really. IIRC, a judge's instruction to a jury on what it meant. As I recall it, and I may be wrong, it seemed to suggest that the 'beyond reasonable doubt' was not an accurate description of what was required. Or you could just edit my previous post.
"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: 3694
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Was Fred West "innocent"?

Postby atticus » Wed Feb 07, 2018 4:06 pm

I doubt that further clarification is necessary, but feel free to add anything further if you wish.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20274
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

PreviousNext

Return to Crime

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest