- Dec 27, 2016
- 26,895
- 56,909
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Moderator
- #226
Has the reasons for the over turning by the high court been reported?
Yes, the jury failed to consider the possibility of innocence apparently but WTF else were they there for?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Has the reasons for the over turning by the high court been reported?
Typical misreporting
He has been granted leave for appeal
Journalists should be jailed for misleading conduct
You know what is stupid about this whole thing. The high court is saying that the jury got it wrong and the accuser lied to the court.
So you either have a legal system that relies on a jury or you have cases heard before only judges. This is a complete mess because it is just saying that our court system is useless. Even though I lean towards believing the victim in the case he should be put in front of the courts now for perjury. There is no more feeling sorry for him and praising how brave he was testifying because he was flat out lying and should be punished
Not there to consider possibility of innocence. Only there to establish whether starting presumption of innocence was overcome beyond reasonable doubt. If an alternate explanation for the circumstances put forward was reasonably possible, no need to be probable or certain, then that should constitute reasonable doubt. In anycase, doubt felt in the minds of the judges was doubt that the jury must have had.Yes, the jury failed to consider the possibility of innocence apparently but WTF else were they there for?
In anycase, doubt felt in the minds of the judges was doubt that the jury must have had.
Typical misreporting
He has been granted leave for appeal
Journalists should be jailed for misleading conduct
Good Q. If the appellate judges had a doubt, that same doubt is considered to be a doubt that the jury also had when it reached its finding; to my mind, that the jury reached finding of guilt despite having that doubt is what technically makes the finding unsafe. But maybe it doesn't really matter, because if it's a doubt that the jury should have had, which is now imposed, then its nonetheless a doubt the jury must have had.Must have had or should have had?
Bu I think you're right "should' rather than "must" is probably more appropriate.Must have had or should have had?
I think the "M test" dictates that it is "must" rather than "should" even though 'should' seems logical. Refer VSCA appeals decision @ 21Must have had or should have had?
I think the "M test" dictates that it is "must" rather than "should" even though 'should' seems logical. Refer VSCA appeals decision @ 21
Today's or the Vic Supreme Court of Appeal judgement? if you mean today's; I also would like to read it. If you mean the VSCA judgement I can send you a link.I'd like to read the judgement.
If the high court decision was appealed, where would you have that appeal be heard?Also the system seems to be set up for the defendant. He gets found guilty then appeals. Gets found guilty again then at the third time of trying gets found not guilty. It seems he could just keep going until found not guilty and then for some reason no one can appeal the high court decision.
Maybe another form of justice will get pell in the form of some hot lead
Today's or the Vic Supreme Court of Appeal judgement? if you mean today's; I also would like to read it. If you mean the VSCA judgement I can send you a link.
If the high court decision was appealed, where would you have that appeal be heard?
Today's or the Vic Supreme Court of Appeal judgement? if you mean today's; I also would like to read it. If you mean the VSCA judgement I can send you a link.
I'd appreciate the link thanks, I did scan it one time but might need a refresher. Thank you. I can wait for today's.
If the high court decision was appealed, where would you have that appeal be heard?
We used to be able to appeal further to the Privy Council but that was closed in 1975Ha ha good point we need another court. That's funny
So Heaven it is!We used to be able to appeal further to the Privy Council but that was closed in 1975