Make these ads go away.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Could be interesting

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    13,535
    Local Date
    02-26-2020
    Local Time
    06:32 AM

    Could be interesting

    'The Murder Trial': Television cameras allowed into British courtroom for the first time for retrial of wife-killer Nat Fraser - Crime - UK - The Independent

    If they return a not proven verdict that is. Scots law is different from English law in that in Scots law, a criminal trial may end in one of three verdicts: one of conviction ("guilty") and two of acquittal ("not proven" and "not guilty"). Not proven is where the jury feels there is not enough evidence to convict but have doubts about the innocence of the accused. In a fight for instance where someone is killed but the killer was carrying a knife and used it in self defence and is charged with murder there is an element of premeditation but also doubt as to intent of the killer, the killer is innocent of premeditated murder but not entirely innocent either since he was carrying a weapon. Never mind gins in Scotland carrying a knife is an arrestable offence potentially carrying a jail sentence.

    There are also 15 jurors and a simple majority is all that is required.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Bryn Mawr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    15,612
    Local Date
    02-26-2020
    Local Time
    06:32 AM

    Re: Could be interesting

    Register to remove this ad.
    Quote Originally Posted by gmc View Post
    'The Murder Trial': Television cameras allowed into British courtroom for the first time for retrial of wife-killer Nat Fraser - Crime - UK - The Independent

    If they return a not proven verdict that is. Scots law is different from English law in that in Scots law, a criminal trial may end in one of three verdicts: one of conviction ("guilty") and two of acquittal ("not proven" and "not guilty"). Not proven is where the jury feels there is not enough evidence to convict but have doubts about the innocence of the accused. In a fight for instance where someone is killed but the killer was carrying a knife and used it in self defence and is charged with murder there is an element of premeditation but also doubt as to intent of the killer, the killer is innocent of premeditated murder but not entirely innocent either since he was carrying a weapon. Never mind gins in Scotland carrying a knife is an arrestable offence potentially carrying a jail sentence.

    There are also 15 jurors and a simple majority is all that is required.
    Showing the trial a year after it took place is a useful exercise - it's showing the trial whilst it is still in progress that I find questionable.

    As for not proven, it has been known to be returned by an English court even though I'm sure it is not one of the options open to them. I decided to go to court to contest a road traffic offence because the police were out of order in the accusation they were making. I took with me the physical evidence that they were wrong and presented solid proof that I had not done what the paperwork said I had. The result? Not Proven - they could not bring themselves to say Not Guilty

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Isn't it interesting
    By Betty Boop in forum General Chit Chat
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09-02-2012, 03:06 PM
  2. This is interesting I saw a UFU
    By fuzzywuzzy in forum General Chit Chat
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 06-12-2009, 05:31 AM
  3. Here's Something Interesting............
    By Kindle in forum Current Political Events
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-02-2009, 06:37 PM
  4. This is interesting
    By Marie5656 in forum Just For The Fun Of It
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-16-2006, 02:33 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts