14-08-2014 1:32 PM
15-08-2014 8:45 AM
You may be right. I haven't read a thing myself except the headlines on the BBC website which included "Cliff Richard's career in pictures". Why?!
15-08-2014 9:41 AM
@upthecreekyetagain wrote:
@**bustysinclaire** wrote:
It is so sad, when people feel the need to report and bring the news of these incidents to the for before people have been charged and a verdict passed, whether they are eventually found guilt or notThe principle sounds good as does the suggestion that individuals in such cases should be granted anonymity.
The problem with surrounding cases in secrecy is the danger that justice will not be seen to be done which can lead to justice not being done.
In addition there have been numerous examples over the years where pre-arrest/pre-trial publicity has led to evidence coming to light that otherwise wouldn't be made known which has helped to prove guilt or innocence..
You don't need to surround cases in secrecy. Normal court reporting of proceedings is fine. But to have a media frenzy before any charges have been brought prejudices the chances of a fair trial.
Others coming forward is always a consideration in these historic cases, of course. But either there is enough evidence to charge him now or there is not. That should not be dependent on bolstering the case with other allegations as this could encourage spurious claims. And, yes, I take the point that Rolf Harris was probably convicted because there was a pattern to the allegations, but really each charge should stand alone, in the same way that a defendant's previous convictions are not admissible evidence in trials.
15-08-2014 10:29 AM
15-08-2014 11:46 AM
15-08-2014 12:02 PM
Caution - details of previous convictions are now allowed in certain cases:-
The evidence must be admissible through one or more of the seven gateways set out in section 101 Criminal Justice Act 2003:
(a) all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible;
(b) the evidence is adduced by the defendant himself or is given in answer to a question asked by him in cross examination and intended to elicit it;
(c) it is important explanatory evidence;
(d) it is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution, which includes:
- whether the defendant has a propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he is charged, except where such propensity makes it no more likely that he is guilty of the offence(section 103(1)(a) Criminal Justice Act 2003);
- whether the defendant has a propensity to be untruthful, except where it is not suggested that the defendant's case is untruthful in any respect (section 103(1)(b) Criminal Justice Act 2003);
(e) it has substantial probative value in relation to an important matter in issue between the defendant and a co-defendant;
(f) it is evidence to correct a false impression given by the defendant; or
(g) the defendant has made an attack on another person's character.
15-08-2014 1:58 PM
Hi all,
the thread has been locked per personal disputes. Personal disputes are not permitted on the eBay.co.uk boards and are at odds with our Boards Policy.
Thanks everyone for the cooperation.