DS Forums

 
 

Les Batterby's trial


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 20-05-2003, 13:13
ric9380
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne
Posts: 721

I had thought that previous convictions couldn't be given in evidence in a criminal trial until after sentence, the idea being that the the jury should deal with the facts of the case only. Previous convictions only become relevant after conviction and the judge (not the jury) takes these into account for sentencing.
ric9380 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 20-05-2003, 15:31
Better The Devil
 
Posts: n/a
I thought about that too. But of course, what happend in the land of soaps, Ric?
  Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2003, 16:29
Bfef
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK, South West
Posts: 16

How's he going to get out of jail (speculation please)........!?

Will he rot in prison (like that McDonald chap) or will Emma come clean?

If she does, will SHE get sentenced and go on the run - taking Curly with her (so they can write him out)...?

Will Janice slip him a cake with a file in it?
Bfef is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2003, 16:50
ric9380
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne
Posts: 721
Emma doesn't come clean and she gets promoted to the rank of Inspector and moves away with Curly. Guess he will rot in jail, unless it goes to appeal.
ric9380 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2003, 17:27
simalo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Disconnected from Reality
Posts: 375
And are witnesses allowed to sit in the public gallery after giving evidence??

That didnt seem right to me even if they are.
simalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2003, 17:48
ric9380
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne
Posts: 721
Originally posted by simalo
And are witnesses allowed to sit in the public gallery after giving evidence??

That didnt seem right to me even if they are.
Yes they are although it is up to them. The Police generally stay as it is they who have initiated the prosecution by the initial charge. What they cannot do in criminal trials is to be in Court before they give evidence (as demonstrated by PC Mick and Sgt Emma loudly arguing about possible perjury outside the Court). By contrast in a civil Court the witnesses can sit in Court and hear all the evidence given.
ric9380 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-05-2003, 02:12
SULLA
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Black Country lad in Yorkshire
Posts: 118,101
As soon as the defendant (les) or his solicitor attacks the character of any of the prosecution witnesses, the posectoion is entitled to attack his character, by, for example, revealing his previous convictions.. That's why Les was told not to say what he did.

It is, howver, normal to ask permission from the judge though
SULLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-05-2003, 16:20
ishan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: London
Posts: 13
Aside from the 'shield' principle (attacking a the character of a prosecution witness, resulting in the loss of your character shield) there is a second common method of your previous convictions being put before the court.

I don't watch Corrie so apologies if this would not apply.

The similar fact rules of evidence can result in previous convictions being revealed.

The idea being that if someone regularly goes round beating people up, biting a chunk out of their ear and then kissing the victim on the head before they flee (wacky example I know) then if they have been indicted of the same thing again, the jury/magistrates can be told of the person's so called 'signature' style.

On the whole soap trials are an awful misrepresentation of court procedure. Whilst I agree that much of what takes place in a court room might not make great TV, the fact remains that more people watch soaps than have attended a trial and sadly have a warped view of what goes on in court.
ishan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-05-2003, 17:22
ric9380
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne
Posts: 721
So, basically if Les hadn't mouthed in Court off he'd probably have got off considering he had a "surprise" witness (was his evidence disclosed to the CPS?)

It looks as if he'll do his time and we can watch as Kirk and Fizz visit every now and again. Well, it will only be a couple of months and by the time Les gets out Emma (die, Emma, die) and Curly will have moved out of the street
ric9380 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-05-2003, 21:25
Bossyboots
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,142
Originally posted by ishan
[B

On the whole soap trials are an awful misrepresentation of court procedure. Whilst I agree that much of what takes place in a court room might not make great TV, the fact remains that more people watch soaps than have attended a trial and sadly have a warped view of what goes on in court. [/b]
I made a similar comment in another forum. So glad to see someone agrees with me.
Bossyboots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-05-2003, 21:28
Bossyboots
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,142

Originally posted by ric9380
I had thought that previous convictions couldn't be given in evidence in a criminal trial until after sentence, the idea being that the the jury should deal with the facts of the case only. Previous convictions only become relevant after conviction and the judge (not the jury) takes these into account for sentencing.
Coronation Street excel in twisting Court procedures so you should take their trials with a large pinch of salt. In reality, Les would not have been sentenced on the same day as being convicted. The Judge should have asked for probation reports and his barrister would have made representations on his behalf to try and reduce his sentence.
Bossyboots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-05-2003, 10:29
ric9380
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne
Posts: 721
Yeah, but it makes good telly.

In fairness to the producers they have acknowledged that their aim was to entertain. The vast number of trials that I've attended (in a professional capacity, of course) have been far from enteraining although there's always the odd one!
ric9380 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-05-2003, 11:21
Carene
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North-West UK
Posts: 2,820
The vast number of trials that I've attended (in a professional capacity, of course)
LOL
Carene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-05-2003, 14:14
John8418
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Essex
Posts: 322
Originally posted by ric9380
The vast number of trials that I've attended (in a professional capacity, of course) ...[/b]
Q: What do you call a geordie in a suit?
A: The defendant
John8418 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-05-2003, 14:58
ric9380
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne
Posts: 721
Originally posted by John8418
Q: What do you call a geordie in a suit?
A: The defendant
Shellsuit more like it
ric9380 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 14:03.