Hi all,

I thought some of you might appreciate an update from The Telegraph;

A police riot squad officer who hit a G20 protester twice with a metal baton has been cleared of assault.
Metropolitan Police Sergeant Delroy Smellie, 47, clashed with animal rights activist Nicola Fisher outside the Bank of England last April.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...f-assault.html

"Ms Fisher, of Brighton, suffered two bruises to her leg and enlisted Max Clifford to sell her story to a national newspaper for around £26,000."

Not a bad little earner really.

As someone who's had hoodies do this do them on many occaisions, it's a cracking idea, where can I get a decent stick?

Actually I'm glad the copper got let off, those protesters are a total pain in the arse. They're just rent-a-mob, who go wherever they can have a pop at people who are more successful than them or the police, (and yes I've spent years working for companies they love to hate, and have on occaision had to arrive at work by other routes or dress down to avoid being targetted). They really aren't standing up for what they believe, they are just out to cause nuisance to ordinary hard working folk.

That like saying all footy supporters are not out supporting the team , they are out to cause a riot, just because a minority of them ARE only there to cause trouble innit

"But there are real life examples, not just TV, where things other than evidence has influenced outcomes.

There was even one famous case where the judge effectively said the jury had ignored the evidence"

is this the post you mean. if it is, its just reinforcing what i meant, that a judge rightly or wrongly will direct a jury accordingly. matters not what they think, the judge can and will overrule or direct them, call mistrial, whatever.

Only if there is some matter of law. My understanding is that the jury decides the facts, the judge decides the law. The judge can't overrule simply because he disagrees with the verdict.

That's as I understand it anyway. The judge can direct the jury but the jury is not obligated to do as directed. What happens then legally I don't know?

In some parts of the world trial by jury is regarded as trial by amateurs so not everywhere would regard a trial without a jury as inferior.

Yes can identify with that. Beats me how Juries arrive at informed decisions where the case (such as fraud, embezzlement etc) is so complex...not withstanding the 'snow job' often offered by Defence Council.

I don't think fraud and embezzlement are complex; my view is that if a law cannot be explained to a lay-person then it's a bad law. Juries are necessary - saying a case is too complicated for a jury implies to me that somebody is not doing their job properly.

And how are the police able to investigate it? The are not exactly known for being Einsteins are they? If they can understand it, I suspect the average juror can.

The biggest obstacle in most fraud trials is everyone staying awake

In General terms I would agree,but to the lay man, they can be complex. Having sat in on a number of trials of various colours, me being just a ordinary Joe, some of them (but not all), particularly in relation to Fraud/Embezzlement/white collar crime etc I found very difficult to keep up with at times (evidence wise). Its likely that some Jurors feel the same way? Points of law as you say can be clarified by the judge on request by the Jury however, it can still be pretty over whelming at times. Just an opinion.

Sorry, your irony is lost on me...but enjoy...though I am glad you maintained your high light within my entire post.

Yes that was the post.

It referred to a case where the jury did reach their own verdict for their own reasons. The verdict stood, despite the judge criticizing the jury.

as there are a few replies on the jury thing i'll just some it up instead of answering loads of posts. yes the jury can reach their own verdict, of course they can. but they can be and are directed by the judge to find guilty or not guilty depending on certain aspects of the trial. and thats if it even gets that far, i would hazard a guess at 60% of trials being decided in legal argument before the trial, or at the half way point case not proven/mistrial.

to say a judge only decides on legal matters and the jury the rest, is like saying your mechanic only fixes your car and you do the rest. without the judge/mechanic you are going nowhere. i don't know where this idea has come from that a jury is ace and all powerful but this simply is not the case and i speak as a voice of experience you can trust me on that.