Originally Posted by jimf (Post 8443304)

If she was a credible witness she would have no trouble at all in appearing in court. The defence would only be able to successfully discredit her if there was a basis upon which to discredit her.

She has the opportunity to appear in court to project herself as a reasonable person who was a victim of assault but has declined to do so.

Originally Posted by Auld Yin (Post 8443346)

I always thought that the accused had the right to face his/her accuser, or is that just in the movies or on TV.

Originally Posted by airbornesapper (Post 8444215)

I see two attempts by a good for nothing (self confessed leach on UK society) making two approaches at said cop who rightly brushed aside this weasel using only his highly trained peripheral vision in tune with his gloved hand and then his baton.

Still gobbing off she got whacked, sad story....

Its just a video, the cop was there for real having to watch a wide arc filled with other nutters.

Pity he was not carry a proper full length baseball bat type baton rather than his little albeit puny quick extender; then he could have stayed back a bit (also keeping the smell away) giving them a good prod to keep their distance...

My two cents...now off to refresh my aid to the civil power-baton wielding skills.

Life is good.

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 8444427)

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

Originally Posted by tim010 (Post 8444601)

Yes the accuser is the state but the aggrieved is the woman. If you are in the legal system we both know that jobs where the aggrieved doesn't turn up will routinely get binned.

Tim

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, the 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 Almost Canadian (Post 8444426)

Have you ever given evidence in Court?
No
I regularly rip people to bits in cross examination.
I would hope you do if its your job to represent your client as effectively as possible
I would be very unlikely to give evidence in any case, particularly one that I am unlikely to personally benefit from.
Neither would I. However, if I had genuinely been the victim of an assault I would most likely wish to give evidence.

Originally Posted by tim010 (Post 8444632)

I don't think you can compare a murder with what this copper is on trial for. There obviously can't be a victim for that!!!

I'm just saying that in normal court cases for common assault it would have been binned if the victim did not wish to turn up and give their evidence.

Tim

Originally Posted by Alan2005 (Post 8444666)

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

Originally Posted by tim010 (Post 8444673)

I think he should be afforded the same rights and procedures as any other person. That is all. It will be interesting to see the result of the trial.

Tim

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?