Heyesey Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 The jury says it wasn't deliberate which technically means that it wasn't Strictly speaking, the jury says it didn't happen, or at least that Burgin didn't cause it. If there were a question of deliberation, the charge would be attempted murder; dangerous driving doesn't require intent. This whole case just reminds me too much of the woman in America - probably thirty years ago now - who walked up to a guy and shot him dead in cold blood, with a gun she'd hired specially for the purpose. The jury found her not guilty on all charges, NOT because there was any possible doubt whatsoever that she'd done it on purpose, but because the woman's daughter had been raped by this guy some time before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tricky Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 I hope you're right. I really really do. But considering the views of some on this thread, I have a horrible feeling about this. I can't help worrying that the jury took so little time to consider their verdict, because they decided she deserved it for what Naz had done to him. Yup. As soon as it went to a jury, there was only ever going to be one outcome. It was just a question of due process and I bet everyone in the courtroom knew it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heyesey Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Yup. As soon as it went to a jury, there was only ever going to be one outcome. It was just a question of due process and I bet everyone in the courtroom knew it too. But due process includes the jury not handing down a perverse verdict; I believe the CPS can appeal on those grounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tricky Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 But due process includes the jury not handing down a perverse verdict; I believe the CPS can appeal on those grounds. And then what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darbees Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 But due process includes the jury not handing down a perverse verdict; I believe the CPS can appeal on those grounds.It's not a perverse verdict, there wasn't enough evidence to prove his intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heyesey Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 And then what? Then it would go to a court of appeal; just as if a convicted person appeals on the grounds his conviction was wrong. For a jury to refuse to convict in spite of the evidence - rather than simply returning a not guilty verdict because there wasn't enough evidence - is extremely rare, but it has been known. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heyesey Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 It's not a perverse verdict, there wasn't enough evidence to prove his intent. If that is the case, then an appeal would fail. Having not actually been in the court room to hear the evidence, there's no way I can say if it is or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tricky Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Then it would go to a court of appeal; just as if a convicted person appeals on the grounds his conviction was wrong. For a jury to refuse to convict in spite of the evidence - rather than simply returning a not guilty verdict because there wasn't enough evidence - is extremely rare, but it has been known. And what would happen if the court of appeal found that the verdict was perverse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glennis Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Its not inconceivable they would meet again, as they live in the same area and drive around the same roads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feiyim Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Good judgement. I hope Burgin gets the right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.