Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Who needs a jury?
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Ah, land of my ancestry, what is happening to you?
A yob accused of robbing a driving instructor walked free from court after a judge ruled his alleged victim was 'too believable' to give evidence.

Mother-of-two Denise Dawson, 36, was praised for being 'honest, utterly decent and brave' when she testified against Liam Perks, 20.

But the trial was stopped on the first day because Judge Jamie Tabor QC ruled her good character may unfairly sway the jury against the defendant.

He decided that her solitary, split-second identification of the man accused of robbing her was simply not enough.
So why let justice be served? Why not instead rule that her testimony as to what happened to her and as to who actually did it may be damaging to the defendant's case and bar her from testifying?
Judge Tabor said he feared the upstanding member of the community might just sway the jury in a case where the evidence fell short.

He told Bristol Crown Court: 'Denise Dawson was a particularly impressive witness because she showed courage, clarity of thought and was undoubtedly honest.

'The jury may lend more weight to her evidence than her facts allow. You cannot be sure she got it right.
You can't be sure she got it wrong either, can you? That's why they let juries decide such things. Well, at least they used to.
'Had this been the Archbishop of Canterbury's son, would I have allowed (the trial) to go on? The answer is no.'
Sounds like open season on the Archbishop of Canterbury's son and all "upstanding citizens" who show "courage, clarity of thought" and who are "undoubtedly honest".

Amazing.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Holy cow! I read that twice and I still can’t believe it. You simply could not make something like that up. People would laugh yo out of the room. The UK seems to be reaching new heights of insanity lately.
 
Written By: jjmurphy
URL: http://www.allthatisnecessary.com
I kept expecting to see that it was really a story from theonion.com.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://qando.net
I’m reminded of a bit of dialogue from "The Maltese Falcon":

JOEL CAIRO - You always seem to have a smooth explanation for everything, Mr. Spade.

SAM SPADE - Would it help if I stammered?


I wonder if this will lead to attorneys coaching their witnesses to look a bit seedy and shifty so that some idiot judge won’t deem them "too credible to testify".
 
Written By: docjim505
URL: http://
When the muslims eventually take over the UK and install a Sharia court system, I wonder if the people in Britain wont be better off.
 
Written By: kyleN
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
I’d venture the world would be a better place if say 5% of all judges had to be removed from office every year by the legislature and executives.

Too many of these guys think they’ve turned into some minor god once they reach the bench. It would be a good reminder that governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed.

Toss in term limits for the legislature and we might get our country back.
 
Written By: MarkD
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider