Originally Posted by Jingsamichty (Post 8444319)

If I get caught on camera speeding, that evidence in itself is enough to convict me. I don't need to appear in court, and no copper ever saw me do it.

The amount of CCTV cameras in the UK suggests that video evidence is considered to be pretty much incontrovertable, so I assume that this is why the judge is allowing the video evidence to stand on its own, without the presence of the undoubtedly whiny and highly annoying victim.

Originally Posted by jimf (Post 8444659)

What is the legal situation compelling people to appear as witnesses? The defendant is entitled not to appear - although that usually seems to be taken as practically an admission of guilt so then its a question of whether other evidence exists to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Has the judge in this case made a special allowance for the victim to not appear - on what grounds - would it have been the prosecution lawyer who made that application? Will that not give grounds for the policeman to appeal at a later stage if he is found guilty at this trial?

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 8444779)

The law on whether a witness is compellable is relatively straightforward and she most certainly would be compellable. However, the prosecuter is unlikely to want to put a reluctant or hostile witness on the stand. That is a decision solely for the prosecuter to make.
Can the defence compel any witness to stand including the victim in this case? If they can then pressumably they didn't want her to.
The accused's right to silence, historically, was no admission of guilt as the burden of proof lies with the State. However, Mr Blair and his cronies have ridden roughshold over this and is it now possible to draw an adverse inference from the accused exercising a right to silence. Something that no other (to my knowledge) modern democracy has done.

Appeals can only be made on errors of law, not on errors of fact. If the judge finds him guilty on the basis of the video evidence then the fact that the judge may have found it easier to convict with additional evidence will not help the accused.

The victim, despite what the media have said, may not have wanted the officer convicted.
So an assault case doesn't depend on the victim making a complaint? Or this this a special case due to the video evidence?

As has been noted above, I fail to see what past conduct she had in her closet, that could be used against her in this trial, unless she had previously been convicted of perjury. The fact that, for example, she is a thief, lives on benefits, can read or write, would be totally irrelevant to determine whether the officer acted reasonably in hitting her. If she had previous convictions for assualting officers, that would be different and, if that is the case, the defence will introduce such evidence at the appropriate time.
If she appeared as a witness would the defence be allowed to ask her if she attended public protests generally, what she did at them etc and produce video evidence of past "baiting" etc. Obviously personal issues shouldn't be relevant in court.

Originally Posted by jimf (Post 8444913)

Would it be correct to say that a defendant would be protected from press reporting of personal matters until after the trial in order that the trial is fair. Would a prosecution witness be fair game in the press?

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 8444999)

You appear to have a number of issues confused. If you call a witness, you cannot cross examine them unless you are able to get the judge to agree that the witness is hostile, then you can. The Defence would be foolish to call her. All she would be able to say is: He hit me. Not something they want to court to hear.

That was what I was wondering and suggesting - that there wasn't any point in the defence calling her. In theory they could though?

All cases depend upon the prosecution being able to prove their allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. If they can do this without having to call any oral evidence, they will do so as oral evidence is normally where "doubts" can be raised. No matter how compelling the testimony of a witness, it is always possible to chip away at their memory, credibility etc.

So the prosecution is saying that they think they have a good case without her and there is no point in taking the risk of her testimony weakening the case especially if she is reluctant.

Past baiting is irrelevant. Evidence of a burglar committing 100 previous burglaries, on its own, is not evidence that they committed this one. What is relevant here is whether the officer acted reasonably in his "self defence".

I doubt very much that there will be any form of ban preventing the press from reporting on her previous behaviour. She is not on trial, the officer is.

Exactly so the press will report on her past behaviour/lifestyle quite freely anyway so what is the point of not appearing in court for that reason?

Originally Posted by jimf (Post 8445046)

For the court case to go ahead does she have to have made a complaint - so if she now withdrew the complaint would the case collapse? Or is it out of her hands now?

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 8445122)

That is irrelevant. The whole, "I do/don't want to press charges" is Holywood. If a crime has been committed the State is duty bound to prosecute, unless it is not in the public interest to do so.

Being cross examined in not a pleasant experience, I can understand why she wouldn't want to subject herself to it.

Originally Posted by dbd33 (Post 8444261)

A question, if I may. Would you say that your extremist authoritarian viewpoints derive from your lack of communication skills, or does holding such views adle one's brain?

The great difficulty the rest of have in discussions with those, such as yourself, who hold views on the extreme right is that such views are rarely advanced in a coherent fashion. I can understand this in the case of Americans, trailer trash from the States beyond the net of the education system, but you're from the UK, you must once have been able to form sentences.

Life Military Brain ****ing is it?

Originally Posted by airbornesapper (Post 8446572)

Not at all, make that nope!

Life, as you ask, well its been very good actually. That applies to both sides of the Atlantic Ocean.

As for grammar, pot kettle, from your canniversary post:

"perhaps I coulda bin a somebody. It's always felt a cop out moving here."

Yours aye, make that up yours....Mr nobody.

Originally Posted by Novocastrian (Post 8443075)

Err, I rather suspect it would be the case anyway if the assault was recorded live like this one. The flip side is if that hadn't been the case, the complainant could show up as often as she liked but a complaint against a policeman would never have a chance.

Originally Posted by Alan2005 (Post 8443395)

I don't see what difference it makes either way. That copper is guilty of assault as can be seen from the video. Maybe the consequences don't merit the crime as rae suggests, but you can't say he didn't do it - cos he did. Dragging that young girl into court isn't going to change that.

Originally Posted by dbd33 (Post 8444182)

What evidence more can there be beyond than that shown? We see a shrill harridan baiting the cop to hit her. He does. The question is whether or not it was reasonable of him to do so, how much restraint can one expect from the police?

Introducing more considerations such as, for example, her drug taking and her sexual history, is just about muddying the waters. Either it's reasonable force or it isn't, it's not unreasonable force against a Conservative and reasonable force against an organic vegan.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 8444427)

The accuser is the State, not the women he assaulted.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 8444622)

I don't know about that, there are very few victims of murderers that attend to give evidence. If there is sufficient evidence, the trial goes ahead. The police are there to uphold the law, they are not judge, jury and executioner. Their "authority" emanates from the fact that they are model citizens. If the officer in question cannot deal with provocation, he needs to find another occupation.

Originally Posted by Alan2005 (Post 8444666)

So you think he should get off on what is basically a technicality then?

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 8444779)

unless she had previously been convicted of perjury. The fact that, for example, she is a thief, lives on benefits, can read or write, would be totally irrelevant to determine whether the officer acted reasonably in hitting her. If she had previous convictions for assualting officers, that would be different and, if that is the case, the defence will introduce such evidence at the appropriate time.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 8444999)

Past baiting is irrelevant. Evidence of a burglar committing 100 previous burglaries, on its own, is not evidence that they committed this one. What is relevant here is whether the officer acted reasonably in his "self defence".

I doubt very much that there will be any form of ban preventing the press from reporting on her previous behaviour. She is not on trial, the officer is.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 8445122)

That is irrelevant. The whole, "I do/don't want to press charges" is Holywood. If a crime has been committed the State is duty bound to prosecute, unless it is not in the public interest to do so.

Being cross examined in not a pleasant experience, I can understand why she wouldn't want to subject herself to it.

Originally Posted by rae (Post 8446875)

why not, happens all the time. i may not endorse it, but it happens i'm afraid. why should he not be afforded the same access to all the legal loopholes that everyone else exploits.

Originally Posted by Alan2005 (Post 8446918)

Those loopholes usually exist cos the police have screwed up the investigation.

Originally Posted by airbornesapper (Post 8446572)

"perhaps I coulda bin a somebody."

Originally Posted by rae (Post 8446888)

i disagree. evidence of character is the example above, not evidence of prior conviction during a trial which i am sure you are aware would not be admissible until sentencing unless the bad character provisions apply for its submission.

Originally Posted by rae (Post 8446893)

no its not. as you yourself have said, no one wants a hostile witness, and unless you are invoking sec 28 of PACE which is rare, then no one wants to run with a job unless you have a complainant who is willing at the very least to give a statement. they don't appear on the day and the case is lost.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 8447869)

OK. The prosecution obviously think they don't need her evidence and that they will obtain a conviction without it. If 100 people witness an incident, it is not necessary to call all 100 of them to give evidence. At some point, the evidence provided will suffice to prove a fact. The video is likely all the evidence that the prosecution needs.

Originally Posted by jimf (Post 8448247)

In fact, for set piece incidents such as this maybe they should be under orders to allow themselves to be knocked over by someone charging at them giving reasonable grounds for the other policeman to rescue them with batons etc.

Originally Posted by jimf (Post 8448247)

The video might be all thats needed but on the other hand its only a few seconds clip in one direction.

Looking at the video again, in spite of the provocation and confusion, I'm suprised, with all the cameras there, the policeman did what he did. In fact, for set piece incidents such as this maybe they should be under orders to allow themselves to be knocked over by someone charging at them giving reasonable grounds for the other policeman to rescue them with batons etc.

Originally Posted by tim010 (Post 8448369)

Are you being serious????? Let themselves get knocked over and jumped/kicked on the floor by an angry mob and then hope they are rescued!!!

The legal issue regarding this case is the pre-emptive strike that the officer used. He has to justify using this pre-emptive strike to protect himself against potential injury.

Tim

Originally Posted by jimf (Post 8448504)

Regretably, the police may then have to take a more passive approach in the future leaving officers at risk. Maybe then it will take an incident in the future where a police officer is seriously injured due to a reluctance to take appropriate action for a reassessment of what is reasonable.

Originally Posted by jimf (Post 8448504)

Regretably, the police may then have to take a more passive approach in the future leaving officers at risk.

Originally Posted by jimf (Post 8448504)

The fact that this is even going to court and is seen as a dead cert case for the policeman to go down seems to indicate that pre-emtive force is going to be insufficient as a defence.

Originally Posted by dbd33 (Post 8448540)

I think that's probably correct. Do you think, based on what we see in video, that the policeman was using reasonable force?

Originally Posted by iaink (Post 8448535)

Or perhaps they will just take reasonable actions to protect themselves in future:rolleyes:Should a juice weilding wooly hat wearing activist happen to make any sudden movements in their direction.

It's easy for the likes of us to decide whats reasonable from the comfort of our computers. Less so for the policeman in the chaos taking place on that day.

I do admire you though for attempting to defend the indefensible.

He does have the right to a defense doesn't he?

AND DBD AND SAPPER, quit the personal spat please.:sneaky:

Originally Posted by Jingsamichty (Post 8448551)

In the circumstances, given the provocation, and given the woman's determination to refuse to stay back, then yes I do think the force could be considered not unreasonable - a good whack after ignoring repeated instructions to stay back.

Originally Posted by Jingsamichty (Post 8448551)

That's why I'm disappointed that the copper is claiming the "orange juice carton" as a defence.

Originally Posted by jimf (Post 8448572)

.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 8448578)

Do you really believe this? Next you will be stating it is OK to shoot Brazilian electricians on the tube.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 8447860)

Rae, you have this backwards. The officer is on trial, not the person he assaulted. Her past conduct is irrelevant. His reaction to the situation he found himself in is. Two very different things.

The police, just like all members of society, are not allowed to assault people on a whim. The police will be treated exactly the same way that a civilian would in similar circumstances (unless their name happens to be Mr. Prescott). The officer does not have special powers in this case simply because he is an officer. He has defences available to him and I am confident that he will use those defences. Whether they will enable him to avoid a conviction remains to be seen.

Originally Posted by Jingsamichty (Post 8448551)

In the circumstances, given the provocation, and given the woman's determination to refuse to stay back, then yes I do think the force could be considered not unreasonable - a good whack after ignoring repeated instructions to stay back.

That's why I'm disappointed that the copper is claiming the "orange juice carton" as a defence.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 8447869)

OK. The prosecution obviously think they don't need her evidence and that they will obtain a conviction without it. If 100 people witness an incident, it is not necessary to call all 100 of them to give evidence. At some point, the evidence provided will suffice to prove a fact. The video is likely all the evidence that the prosecution needs.

Originally Posted by rae (Post 8448599)

therefore any possible bearing her past may have on the trial will never come to light.