| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? 07:59 - Sep 21 with 6088 views | Lohengrin |
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-62971626
”The absolute discharge sentence means Rahman committed the offence but will not face any punishment or order.” |  |
| An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it. |
| |  |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 14:19 - Sep 22 with 1067 views | Jack123 |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 10:23 - Sep 22 by Sirjohnalot |
That's not correct. You hear 'never engage with the police' from people on twitter advising protestors who, quite frankly, have no idea what they're talking about. If anyone is ever arrested, get the duty solicitor if you do not have one. Giving a version of events, even by way of a prepared statement can be vital to a defence and the police must follow any reasonable lines of enquiry |
Wouldn't it be best to go no comment, if you are actually guilty?, I have watched more or less nearly every episode of 24 hours in Police custody, seen people caught red handed via police body cam, and a good few times, the cps don't prosecute, or they get found not guilty at court.
My perception of this is, the onus is on the police to prove what they are accusing you of, not for the accused to prove his innocence.
Personally, If i was accused of something I didn't do, I would have to bite my tongue not to answer, if the questions were way off the mark. |  |
| |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 14:47 - Sep 22 with 1039 views | onehunglow |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 14:19 - Sep 22 by Jack123 |
Wouldn't it be best to go no comment, if you are actually guilty?, I have watched more or less nearly every episode of 24 hours in Police custody, seen people caught red handed via police body cam, and a good few times, the cps don't prosecute, or they get found not guilty at court.
My perception of this is, the onus is on the police to prove what they are accusing you of, not for the accused to prove his innocence.
Personally, If i was accused of something I didn't do, I would have to bite my tongue not to answer, if the questions were way off the mark. |
Good post
If yiu have nothing to hide then one would expect one to say what happened. If one is guilty then the essence is to do what ever it takes to be found not guilty.
I have come across too many literally caught in the act only for a court to find not guilty months later. Barristers and solicitors are both highly intelligent and wily. They will defend their client to the best of THEIR ability .
It’s hard enough to find witnesses to come forward and then go to court to be ripped asunder on the Box.Manybwill not know theircarse from their elbow after a cross exam.
Imagine the trauma facing young Olivia s parents right now.
A killer is out there,being shielded. When he is caught,he will say nothing as he is guilty but it’s down to the 12 poor burgers to pass a guilty verdict [Post edited 22 Sep 2022 14:49]
|  |
| |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 18:47 - Sep 22 with 966 views | controversial_jack |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 14:47 - Sep 22 by onehunglow |
Good post
If yiu have nothing to hide then one would expect one to say what happened. If one is guilty then the essence is to do what ever it takes to be found not guilty.
I have come across too many literally caught in the act only for a court to find not guilty months later. Barristers and solicitors are both highly intelligent and wily. They will defend their client to the best of THEIR ability .
It’s hard enough to find witnesses to come forward and then go to court to be ripped asunder on the Box.Manybwill not know theircarse from their elbow after a cross exam.
Imagine the trauma facing young Olivia s parents right now.
A killer is out there,being shielded. When he is caught,he will say nothing as he is guilty but it’s down to the 12 poor burgers to pass a guilty verdict [Post edited 22 Sep 2022 14:49]
|
It's been explained you in the past that we have an adversarial justice system.
I thought the suspect was in custody. | | | |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 19:56 - Sep 22 with 955 views | Sirjohnalot |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 13:30 - Sep 22 by onehunglow |
Are you ever wrong .? |
Absolutely I am and very frequently on many many topics. |  | | |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 20:02 - Sep 22 with 940 views | Sirjohnalot |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 13:48 - Sep 22 by onehunglow |
I was a custody officer for several years in a very busy Liverpool station.
Duty Solicitors were a daily event
Solicitors have a completely different perspective
Career criminals often won’t pass comment as it is simply a natural thing for them to do. Few cough and I’m sharing Jon s comments vis a vis no comment interviews as many would argue it is the right of a defendant to stay silent anyway so he had every right to stay Schaumburg.
And he has |
If you’re talking about the person in this case, he didn’t chose to stay silent, he did not have capacity, so wouldn’t have been fit for interview and was not permitted to give evidence.
The solicitor’s job in the police station is to act ‘without fear or favour ‘ for their client. I make no apology for that, I have done it for people I admired and believed and people I abhorred. | | | |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 20:08 - Sep 22 with 928 views | Sirjohnalot |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 14:19 - Sep 22 by Jack123 |
Wouldn't it be best to go no comment, if you are actually guilty?, I have watched more or less nearly every episode of 24 hours in Police custody, seen people caught red handed via police body cam, and a good few times, the cps don't prosecute, or they get found not guilty at court.
My perception of this is, the onus is on the police to prove what they are accusing you of, not for the accused to prove his innocence.
Personally, If i was accused of something I didn't do, I would have to bite my tongue not to answer, if the questions were way off the mark. |
Mostly, if you’re advised they’re guilty or a witness is not likely to go to court, or if you’re client was drunk and cannot remember, or if they’re an idiot. you advise no comment. Crown bring the case, Crown must prove it. It’s not your job to help the police prove their case. My duty is, first, to the court, then the client. (I cannot lie for him or give him a defence, or tell the court he is not guilty when he has told me he is)
Spot on re wanting to answer questions and that is exactly what I say to the jury when I’m prosecuting re going no comment when they try to explain it by saying they were following the advice of their solicitor. You’d be singing it from the rooftops if you were not guilty. | | | |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 20:10 - Sep 22 with 919 views | Sirjohnalot |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 14:47 - Sep 22 by onehunglow |
Good post
If yiu have nothing to hide then one would expect one to say what happened. If one is guilty then the essence is to do what ever it takes to be found not guilty.
I have come across too many literally caught in the act only for a court to find not guilty months later. Barristers and solicitors are both highly intelligent and wily. They will defend their client to the best of THEIR ability .
It’s hard enough to find witnesses to come forward and then go to court to be ripped asunder on the Box.Manybwill not know theircarse from their elbow after a cross exam.
Imagine the trauma facing young Olivia s parents right now.
A killer is out there,being shielded. When he is caught,he will say nothing as he is guilty but it’s down to the 12 poor burgers to pass a guilty verdict [Post edited 22 Sep 2022 14:49]
|
Can’t argue with any of that. Other than, we also give strong advice to plead guilty and avoid trials such as that evil police officer
Do you know, no one has ever asked me ‘how can you prosecute someone, you think is not guilty ‘
This post has been edited by an administrator | | | |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 20:48 - Sep 22 with 889 views | Jack123 |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 20:08 - Sep 22 by Sirjohnalot |
Mostly, if you’re advised they’re guilty or a witness is not likely to go to court, or if you’re client was drunk and cannot remember, or if they’re an idiot. you advise no comment. Crown bring the case, Crown must prove it. It’s not your job to help the police prove their case. My duty is, first, to the court, then the client. (I cannot lie for him or give him a defence, or tell the court he is not guilty when he has told me he is)
Spot on re wanting to answer questions and that is exactly what I say to the jury when I’m prosecuting re going no comment when they try to explain it by saying they were following the advice of their solicitor. You’d be singing it from the rooftops if you were not guilty. |
Thank you John. Fascinating stuff | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 20:53 - Sep 22 with 875 views | onehunglow |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 20:48 - Sep 22 by Jack123 |
Thank you John. Fascinating stuff |
Crown Court rooms intimidate most on lookers.
It is is place with rules that seem arcane to the man in the street.
Few ,very few are privy to what goes on in bringing a case to court and how Counsels operate
Very clever people
Jon is a gentle soul in the flesh ,make no mistake, but he has the ability to tear into those who are cross examined . | |
| |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 09:24 - Sep 23 with 784 views | Catullus |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 20:53 - Sep 22 by onehunglow |
Crown Court rooms intimidate most on lookers.
It is is place with rules that seem arcane to the man in the street.
Few ,very few are privy to what goes on in bringing a case to court and how Counsels operate
Very clever people
Jon is a gentle soul in the flesh ,make no mistake, but he has the ability to tear into those who are cross examined . |
A lot of people, myself included, have a different persona for different times. At work, at home, down the pub or on the internet, we can all be very different. | |
| |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 10:14 - Sep 23 with 771 views | onehunglow |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 09:24 - Sep 23 by Catullus |
A lot of people, myself included, have a different persona for different times. At work, at home, down the pub or on the internet, we can all be very different. |
I judge as I see in front of my own eyes
Jon gives the impression of being a rather,sweet,benign and utterly harmless individual.
The fact he referred me as a sweetiepie led to much laughter here.I had to show his post to my missus who almost fell over,helpless.
He would be like a viper in a court room.I remember some lovely,and rather pretty lady barristers who outside the room were lovely but inside they would eat your testicles whole.
Barristers are there to win their brief . | |
| |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 11:41 - Sep 23 with 744 views | Sirjohnalot |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 10:14 - Sep 23 by onehunglow |
I judge as I see in front of my own eyes
Jon gives the impression of being a rather,sweet,benign and utterly harmless individual.
The fact he referred me as a sweetiepie led to much laughter here.I had to show his post to my missus who almost fell over,helpless.
He would be like a viper in a court room.I remember some lovely,and rather pretty lady barristers who outside the room were lovely but inside they would eat your testicles whole.
Barristers are there to win their brief . |
The stereotypical 'viper' doesn't necessarily win many case or draw much favour with juries. It can put witnesses on the defensive and alienate your point.
My tactic generally, is very polite, softer approach with the aim of leading the witness to where I want them to be. What quite often happens is, with the more aggressive witness, they don't realise where they are heading till it is too late.
I do attack a witness if necessary but the days of always hammering a witness are long gone.
If necessary and, dependant on the nature of the witness, I wil go for the throat, but in sex cases eg when you are defending a) it''s now mostly pre recorded many months before the trial b) judge would stop you and demand to know what you were doing and c) would be a terrible tactic to use in front of a jury who would probably have the sympathy of the jury.
Ripping into a lady in tears accusing someone of rape gets you no where. You can turn the screw if evidence emerges that she is lying but being hostile, gets you no where and is a very very old fashioned way of doing things. | | | |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 11:49 - Sep 23 with 741 views | theloneranger |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 20:02 - Sep 22 by Sirjohnalot |
If you’re talking about the person in this case, he didn’t chose to stay silent, he did not have capacity, so wouldn’t have been fit for interview and was not permitted to give evidence.
The solicitor’s job in the police station is to act ‘without fear or favour ‘ for their client. I make no apology for that, I have done it for people I admired and believed and people I abhorred. |
"If you’re talking about the person in this case, he didn’t chose to stay silent, he did not have capacity, so wouldn’t have been fit for interview and was not permitted to give evidence."
He was of sound mind when he was arrested at Heathrow airport trying to leave the country.
He was also fit for interview after his arrest and Rahman previously stood trial twice in 2020, but both those trials were abandoned due to illness, with the second trial in November of that year ending after a juror tested positive for Covid and the jury was discharged.
He had a heart attack in December 2020, and then developed onset dementia.
So if it wasn't for the abandonment of those 2 trials in 2020, he could now be serving a prison sentence. |  |
| Everyday above ground ... Is a good day! 😎 |
| |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 11:52 - Sep 23 with 737 views | onehunglow |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 11:41 - Sep 23 by Sirjohnalot |
The stereotypical 'viper' doesn't necessarily win many case or draw much favour with juries. It can put witnesses on the defensive and alienate your point.
My tactic generally, is very polite, softer approach with the aim of leading the witness to where I want them to be. What quite often happens is, with the more aggressive witness, they don't realise where they are heading till it is too late.
I do attack a witness if necessary but the days of always hammering a witness are long gone.
If necessary and, dependant on the nature of the witness, I wil go for the throat, but in sex cases eg when you are defending a) it''s now mostly pre recorded many months before the trial b) judge would stop you and demand to know what you were doing and c) would be a terrible tactic to use in front of a jury who would probably have the sympathy of the jury.
Ripping into a lady in tears accusing someone of rape gets you no where. You can turn the screw if evidence emerges that she is lying but being hostile, gets you no where and is a very very old fashioned way of doing things. |
“ leading the witness to where YOU want them to be .”
I did not use the go for the throat with regard to rape cases.
It also true female barristers are very adept at manipulating males .
You defend your profession very well | |
| |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 13:12 - Sep 23 with 710 views | Sirjohnalot |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 11:52 - Sep 23 by onehunglow |
“ leading the witness to where YOU want them to be .”
I did not use the go for the throat with regard to rape cases.
It also true female barristers are very adept at manipulating males .
You defend your profession very well |
Prosecuting or defending, you are trying to show inconsistencies in the opposite side's version. The purpose of cross examination is to highlight these and to therefore lead the witness to where you want them to be. A dishonest witness can be tracked by their lies. I would suggest that the purpose of the police interview is to do the same thing thing which is why full disclosure it not given re details of forensics.
Not quite sure re your point about female barristers means.
I am not defending defending the profession, but explaining the way I work.
I could suggest that whenever anyone criticises the police, you do likewise. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
