Sadly that says more about the decline in the quality of jurors than anything else

 

Maybe it is time to change the jury system in this country from the great unwashed who in many cases are not intelligent or worldly enough to pass judgement to a national panel of professional jurors who have passed stringent tests

Even by your standards that is a ridiculous statement. Which are the papers that have kicked up the most fuss about this case? They are the very papers read by the people you dismiss in such an insulting manner. Even if the judge didn't mention the "heat of the moment" defence is his summing up, defence counsel would have had the opportunity to do so earlier. But it seems you are happier to accept a verdict reached in a Chinese court in a trial which lasted less than 30 minutes than the verdict of an English court following a full trial.

Even by your standards that is a ridiculous statement. Which are the papers that have kicked up the most fuss about this case? They are the very papers read by the people you dismiss in such an insulting manner. Even if the judge didn't mention the "heat of the moment" defence is his summing up, defence counsel would have had the opportunity to do so earlier. But it seems you are happier to accept a verdict reached in a Chinese court in a trial which lasted less than 30 minutes than the verdict of an English court following a full trial.

 

There was no case to answer in the Chinese one, he was caught red handed with drugs, he was not fitted up by the Chinese police, no medical evidence was ever given to the Chinese authorities that showed that he was mentally ill so under their laws it was an open and shut case

 

This case regarding the burglary it is quite clear that common sense was not applied in the case which raises questions about the competence of the jury system in this country

 

I was not saying that jury system should be changed merely that maybe it should be looked at being changed

There was no case to answer in the Chinese one, he was caught red handed with drugs, he was not fitted up by the Chinese police, no medical evidence was ever given to the Chinese authorities that showed that he was mentally ill so under their laws it was an open and shut case

 

This case regarding the burglary it is quite clear that common sense was not applied in the case which raises questions about the competence of the jury system in this country

 

I was not saying that jury system should be changed merely that maybe it should be looked at being changed

Don't you think the jury might have heard some evidence you don't know about which led them to reach their verdict? There are likely to have been jurors who argued for a not guilty verdict but, if so, they were unable to persuade the rest of the jury. As far as I know it was a unanimous verdict so any early dissenters were obviously persuaded to change their minds.

Don't you think the jury might have heard some evidence you don't know about which led them to reach their verdict? There are likely to have been jurors who argued for a not guilty verdict but, if so, they were unable to persuade the rest of the jury. As far as I know it was a unanimous verdict so any early dissenters were obviously persuaded to change their minds.

 

I do wonder what the verdict would have been had it been a white man in the dock and not an asian man, I can't help but think that some of the decision to convict was racially motivated

 

I personally don't think the case should have come to trial in the first place unless there is some evidence we have not heard that has not been published, I keep a hunting knife in my bedroom and if anyone breaks into my house I would stab them without hesitation and make sure I stab them to death so it would be outrageous if I ended up in the dock for protecting my property against someone who broke in, the law needs changing that if you deal with a burglar then you don't face penalty

 

Rob made a point before that was a valid one that someone could kill someone elsewhere and then drag them to the house and claim they were a burglar but the system does need changing in some shape or form

I do wonder what the verdict would have been had it been a white man in the dock and not an asian man, I can't help but think that some of the decision to convict was racially motivated

 

And what on earth has lead you to bring this into the debate? Not only, as Suedehead has already mentioned, do you not know the full details put forward to the jury yet are quite happy to decide that they were wrong but you are now introducing new claims that have no factual basis aside from in your own head. :mellow:

 

 

I keep a hunting knife in my bedroom and if anyone breaks into my house I would stab them without hesitation and make sure I stab them to death so it would be outrageous if I ended up in the dock for protecting my property against someone who broke in, the law needs changing that if you deal with a burglar then you don't face penalty

 

WTF? In the China thread you maintain that people should respect the law of the country they are in yet in this one you are quite content to decide that the UK law should be ignored and that you should be entitled to take the law into your own hands and kill someone if they break into your house.

Edited January 1, 201015 yr by Dandy*

I do wonder what the verdict would have been had it been a white man in the dock and not an asian man, I can't help but think that some of the decision to convict was racially motivated

Now I'm very confused. Earlier in this thread you agreed with the assertion that the verdict was due to "political correctness". Now you're claiming it was due to racism. So apparently the jury were a bunch of politically correct racists :blink:

Sadly that says more about the decline in the quality of jurors than anything else

 

Maybe it is time to change the jury system in this country from the great unwashed who in many cases are not intelligent or worldly enough to pass judgement to a national panel of professional jurors who have passed stringent tests

How the hell do you have a decline in the quality of jurors? Nothing has changed in the selection process...

 

And in any case, how would you even judge what made an 'intelligent' or 'worldly' juror? :/ What tests would you use, because they would be ridiculously subjective?

 

I find it rather ironic as well that you're condemning the jurors for being unintelligent and unworldly when it's these sorts of people who are making the biggest fuss about this verdict!

I do wonder what the verdict would have been had it been a white man in the dock and not an asian man, I can't help but think that some of the decision to convict was racially motivated

 

I guess it was a jury comprised of 12 Asians and black people who convicted Tony Martin too then eh Craig...... :rolleyes:

 

What a silly statement......

Sadly that says more about the decline in the quality of jurors than anything else

 

Another ridiculous statement..... Just keep piling them on mate.... :lol:

 

If the Jurors were really as "thick" as you are implying they'd not be able to follow the evidence in the case, as they'd lack the intellectual capacity to understand it...... Not to mention all the "pesky" legal terminology...... :rolleyes:

 

Yes, I suppose it is really SO INCONVIENIENT this whole "Trial by One's Peers" things isn't it... :rolleyes: Hitler, Stalin and every fukkin' tin-pot dictator that's ever been obviously felt the same way as you..... You and Richard are in such good company...... :P

Another ridiculous statement..... Just keep piling them on mate.... :lol:

 

If the Jurors were really as "thick" as you are implying they'd not be able to follow the evidence in the case, as they'd lack the intellectual capacity to understand it...... Not to mention all the "pesky" legal terminology...... :rolleyes:

 

Yes, I suppose it is really SO INCONVIENIENT this whole "Trial by One's Peers" things isn't it... :rolleyes: Hitler, Stalin and every fukkin' tin-pot dictator that's ever been obviously felt the same way as you..... You and Richard are in such good company...... :P

 

Nope, but if (as reporting in the media over the last week) one of the jurors had previously run for council as a UK Independence Party candidate was according to another anonymous member of jury a key instigator towards the jury reaching a guilty verdict you'd still have no problem with this case?

Nope, but if (as reporting in the media over the last week) one of the jurors had previously run for council as a UK Independence Party candidate was according to another anonymous member of jury a key instigator towards the jury reaching a guilty verdict you'd still have no problem with this case?

 

And I get accused of espousing silly conspiracy theories...... :rolleyes:

And I get accused of espousing silly conspiracy theories...... :rolleyes:

 

Well I guess you'd rather trust the Daily Star; the Daily Mail; the Sun or the Daily Mirror; than a half page exclusive in the Independent. :rolleyes:

Jailed businessman Munir Hussain freed by court

Source - BBC News - 20th Jan

 

Munir Hussain managed to escape from intruders in his home

 

A businessman who was jailed for permanently injuring an intruder who attacked him and his family has been freed by the Court of Appeal.

 

Munir Hussain 53, was sentenced to 30 months for grievous bodily harm with intent after he hit Walid Salem with a cricket bat on 3 September 2008.

 

Hussain and his family had been tied up by three intruders at their home in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire.

 

His jail sentence is now 12 months suspended for two years.

 

These is also a supervision requirement for the two years.

 

Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, who was sitting with two other judges in London, said he had shown "mercy" to Hussain.

 

His brother, 35-year-old Tokeer Hussain, who was also jailed for causing grievous bodily harm with intent, had his 39-month jail term reduced to two years.

 

Speaking outside court, he said: "We're extremely grateful to the Court of Appeal and the Lord Chief Justice for releasing my father.

 

"We're grateful for all the support we have received from the entire nation, and all the attention support from the media.

 

"Whilst it will be great to have my father home immediately, our thoughts will be with my uncle, Tokeer Hussain, who won't be released as yet... We hope he stays strong."

 

He added: "I don't think our family will ever get over it."

 

The Lord Chief Justice made it clear that the Hussain case was 'exceptional', and that the 'call for mercy' had to be answered.

 

Hussain and his brother, who were both described as being at the heart of their community, were imprisoned in December after being found guilty at Reading Crown Court.

 

The court heard Hussain and his wife and children returned from their local mosque to find intruders wearing balaclavas in their home.

 

They were tied up but the businessman escaped and enlisted his brother to help chase the offenders down the street, bringing one of them to the ground.

 

The pair left Salem with a permanent brain injury after hitting him with a cricket bat.

 

The force of the blow was so hard that it broke the bat into three pieces.

 

Lord Judge said: "This trial had nothing to do with the right of the householder to defend themselves or their families or their homes.

 

"The burglary was over and the burglars had gone. No one was in any further danger from them."

 

The decision to free Hussain comes one day after judges rejected his appeal against his conviction.

 

Lord Judge said the case was one of "true exceptionality".

 

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson said people who put themselves in danger to tackle criminals should be celebrated as "heroes".

 

Courageous members of the public "make our society worthwhile", he said as part of a widening political debate about the rights of people to use force to defend themselves.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

No doubt Craig and Richard will praise this appeal, but frankly I find it utterly bizarre..... Especially when one takes into account what the law actually says....

 

Clive Coleman, legal affairs analyst

 

The 2008 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act provides that homeowners who use reasonable force to protect themselves against intruders, and use no more force than is absolutely necessary, should not be prosecuted.

 

However, there are additional factors. The homeowner should be acting instinctively, fear for their own safety or the safety of others, or act in order to make a lawful arrest (or prevent someone who is lawfully detained from escaping).

 

The law does not protect those who set upon a fleeing criminal or who lie in wait to attack them. This would amount to people taking the law into their own hands.

 

So, I frankly dont see how the Court of Appeal really justifies its ruling when the law is pretty clear on this.... They DID set about a fleeing criminal, and commissioned others unconnected with the actual offence to take part in an assault...

 

This is a bad decision, IMO, which sets a dangerous precedent..... I guess anyone now can just take the law into their own hands..... The Court of Appeal says so.......

 

So, let's go out tonight and give Gary Glitter a good doing over... Who's up for it....?