Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Silk - directed guilty verdict
26 views
Skip to first unread message
Sylvia Else
Jul 13, 2012, 8:06:56 AM7/13/12
to
I was susprised to see a judge direct a verdict of guilty (though one
not followed by the jury) in Silk. I was under the impression that the
House of Lords had made it abundantly clear that a judge cannot do any
such thing.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd050210/wang-1.htm
"18. We would accordingly allow the appeal, quash the appellant's
conviction and answer the certified question by saying that there are no
circumstances in which a judge is entitled to direct a jury to return a
verdict of guilty."
Sylvia.
not followed by the jury) in Silk. I was under the impression that the
House of Lords had made it abundantly clear that a judge cannot do any
such thing.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd050210/wang-1.htm
"18. We would accordingly allow the appeal, quash the appellant's
conviction and answer the certified question by saying that there are no
circumstances in which a judge is entitled to direct a jury to return a
verdict of guilty."
Sylvia.
Phil Allison
Jul 13, 2012, 10:19:58 AM7/13/12
to
"Stupider than Anyone Else on planet Earth "
>I was susprised to see a judge direct a verdict of guilty (though one not
>followed by the jury) in Silk.
Certainly not last Thursday night on ABC1 where a murder trial was
abandoned.
Or maybe you dreamt it ?
In any case, a judge's directions can be ignored by a jury and if they so
do any legal errors involved are rendered moot.
.... Phil
Phil Allison
Jul 13, 2012, 10:54:18 AM7/13/12
to
"Stupider than Anyone Else on planet Earth "
>
>
>>I was susprised to see a judge direct a verdict of guilty (though one not
>>followed by the jury) in Silk.
>
>
> ** When and where was this aired ?
>
> Certainly not last Thursday night on ABC1 where a murder trial was
> abandoned.
** Was it the one about the half wit who had all his toe nails pulled out ?
>
>
>>I was susprised to see a judge direct a verdict of guilty (though one not
>>followed by the jury) in Silk.
>
>
> ** When and where was this aired ?
>
> Certainly not last Thursday night on ABC1 where a murder trial was
> abandoned.
That episode was aired three weeks ago.
... Phil
Pelican
Jul 13, 2012, 12:34:17 PM7/13/12
to
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
news:a6ahb2...@mid.individual.net...
the jury on the law, and dictating to the jury that they must, then and
there, say "guilty". There was little doubt about guilt. The problem was
that the jury had been deprived of making its own decision. That is not
permitted. The judge must still direct the jury on the law, can tell them
that they must convict as a matter of law, but must then let them retire to
decide. In almost all cases, the jury will convict, and the conviction is
safe enough if the facts and law support it. The jury could, however,
decline to convict.
In the episode of Silk, there was a direction to find the accused guilty,
but the jury found him innocent. So be it.
David Barnett
Jul 13, 2012, 5:37:17 PM7/13/12
to
In article <a6ahb2...@mid.individual.net>,
syl...@not.here.invalid says...
I am pleased to see at last a thread that interests me &
relevant to the newsgroup.
Of course, Sylvia, you are only doing a nitpick, but what
appears to be a valid one.
I, myself, don't worry about faults in a TV show, as long
as it is entertaining.
If it takes a nitpick to start a discussion of a TV show,
please nitpick away.
I certainly enjoy SILK & I thank the ABC for showing 2
seasons of it.
--
David Barnett
syl...@not.here.invalid says...
relevant to the newsgroup.
Of course, Sylvia, you are only doing a nitpick, but what
appears to be a valid one.
I, myself, don't worry about faults in a TV show, as long
as it is entertaining.
If it takes a nitpick to start a discussion of a TV show,
please nitpick away.
I certainly enjoy SILK & I thank the ABC for showing 2
seasons of it.
--
David Barnett
MontyCarlo
Jul 13, 2012, 6:52:20 PM7/13/12
to
the law.
Apparently in the show the facts were largely not in dispute.
Therefore applying the law to the facts led to one outcome and the Judge
directed as written above.
However the jury went on a frolic of their own.
The Crown could appeal obviously.
Pelican
Jul 13, 2012, 8:31:57 PM7/13/12
to
"MontyCarlo" <bik...@primus.com> wrote in message
news:jtq8rl$sh8$1...@dont-email.me...
where the judge has specifically directed them that the legally correct
verdict had to be "guilty"?
Phil Allison
Jul 13, 2012, 9:31:00 PM7/13/12
to
"Pelican"
>
> In the episode of Silk, there was a direction to find the accused guilty,
> but the jury found him innocent. So be it.
the charge.
That defence was that he was under extreme duress in relation to carrying
out the act.
The judge told the jury that this defence was not allowable in the
circumstances.
The jury decided that the same circumstances indicated otherwise and
acquitted.
The accused was then found murdered few days later.
QED.
..... Phil
Sylvia Else
Jul 13, 2012, 9:31:29 PM7/13/12
to
accused guilty, an appeal would have been successful.
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
Jul 13, 2012, 9:33:34 PM7/13/12
to
people gain their understanding of the law from such programs, so it
serves some purpose to point out errors.
Sylvia.
Pelican
Jul 13, 2012, 9:34:02 PM7/13/12
to
"Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:a6c0en...@mid.individual.net...
particular reason for the decision.
Sylvia Else
Jul 13, 2012, 9:34:27 PM7/13/12
to
Sylvia.
Phil Allison
Jul 13, 2012, 9:40:05 PM7/13/12
to
"Pelican = ASD fucked TROLL" <
>
> All a jury says is guilty or not guilty. You are not able to attribute
> any particular reason for the decision.
Any who is not totally fucking AUTISTIC like YOU can.
.... Phil
Sylvia Else
Jul 13, 2012, 9:44:38 PM7/13/12
to
decided to let the accused off anyway because he wasn't very bright and
had been abused and betrayed by some very nasty people.
That's consistent with the verdict, but different from your attribution.
What say you now about one's ability to attribute a particular reason?
Sylvia.
Phil Allison
Jul 13, 2012, 9:47:19 PM7/13/12
to
" Stupider than Anyone Else on Earth "
>
> Perhaps ..
** Fuck off
- you stinking tenth witted bloody TROLL.
Pelican
Jul 13, 2012, 9:48:58 PM7/13/12
to
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
not mean literally what it says. So long as the judge allows the jury to
retire to consider its verdict (on the basis of his specific direction that
no other verdict but guilty is legally possible), it will stand. The cases
leading up to the HL decision were ones where the judge required the jury to
make its guilty decision there and then, merely by saying "guilty".
Apparently, that was the accepted way of doing it. The HL decision stopped
that. All it means is the the judge has to give the jury the real
opportunity of making its own decision, in private. After, of course, the
clear direction that a guilty verdict is required. Apparently, that's the
way it's done now.
In reality, it's not so peculiar. The judge must instruct the jury on the
law, and must tell them whether the prosecution has made out its case or the
defence made good any defence. That provides scope for telling the jury
what to do ie find the accused guilty. So long as the jury gets a real
possibility of making a contrary finding, a guilty verdict will stand. It
won't be quashed on the ground that the trial miscarried because the jury
did not make a decision according to law. It is subject to appeal by the
accused on the usual grounds, of course.
Pelican
Jul 13, 2012, 9:52:08 PM7/13/12
to
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
other jurisdictions can easily be very different.
peterwn
Jul 14, 2012, 1:58:57 AM7/14/12
to
to her?
Sylvia Else
Jul 14, 2012, 2:04:28 AM7/14/12
to
relevant case I found was
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1976/16.html
this presumably being in part because it's settled law, together with
the limited time for which cases, other than High Court cases, are
available in Austlii.
Anyway, I found that decision a little odd. On the one hand it seems to
be saying very clearly that judges cannot direct a jury to convict. But
on the otherhand, has accepted the procedure adopted by the judge
(paragraph 5).
Even though the judge did not expressly direct the jury to convict, and
even though he said that he was asking whether the jury found the
accused guilty or not guilty, it then appears that he proceeded
immediately to ask the jury foreman, and only after receiving the
verdict confirmed that it was the opinion of the others.
The foreman would reasonbably have felt that he was being asked as a
formality, in that he was being given no opportunity to ask the other
jurors what they thought, and the others might then have felt that they
were also being asked as a formality. Thus regardless of whether the
judge intended the effect of his words to be a directed verdict of
guilty, that may have been how they were interpreted by the jury. The
procedure adopted would also have tended to make it difficult for the
jury to decide collectively whether they wanted to enter any other verdict.
The particular case was not one where it's at all likely that the jury
would have found any differently had they felt they had a genuine
choice, but the principle stands.
Clearly, any defence lawyer who's hoping for a perverse verdict, must,
during his or her closing speech, make it abundantly clear to the jury
that even if they feel that the judge is directing them to find the
accused guilty, and even if the judge does not allow the jury time to
consider first, they still have that option of entering a not guilty
verdict.
Sylvia
Sylvia Else
Jul 14, 2012, 2:48:18 AM7/14/12
to
On 14/07/2012 11:48 AM, Pelican wrote:
>
> I doubt it. The specific decision is a little misleading, because it
> does not mean literally what it says. So long as the judge allows the
> jury to retire to consider its verdict (on the basis of his specific
> direction that no other verdict but guilty is legally possible), it will
> stand. The cases leading up to the HL decision were ones where the
> judge required the jury to make its guilty decision there and then,
> merely by saying "guilty". Apparently, that was the accepted way of
> doing it. The HL decision stopped that. All it means is the the judge
> has to give the jury the real opportunity of making its own decision, in
> private. After, of course, the clear direction that a guilty verdict is
> required. Apparently, that's the way it's done now.
>
> In reality, it's not so peculiar. The judge must instruct the jury on
> the law, and must tell them whether the prosecution has made out its
> case or the defence made good any defence. That provides scope for
> telling the jury what to do ie find the accused guilty. So long as the
> jury gets a real possibility of making a contrary finding, a guilty
> verdict will stand. It won't be quashed on the ground that the trial
> miscarried because the jury did not make a decision according to law.
> It is subject to appeal by the accused on the usual grounds, of course.
In the episode, the judge's exact comment was
>
> I doubt it. The specific decision is a little misleading, because it
> does not mean literally what it says. So long as the judge allows the
> jury to retire to consider its verdict (on the basis of his specific
> direction that no other verdict but guilty is legally possible), it will
> stand. The cases leading up to the HL decision were ones where the
> judge required the jury to make its guilty decision there and then,
> merely by saying "guilty". Apparently, that was the accepted way of
> doing it. The HL decision stopped that. All it means is the the judge
> has to give the jury the real opportunity of making its own decision, in
> private. After, of course, the clear direction that a guilty verdict is
> required. Apparently, that's the way it's done now.
>
> In reality, it's not so peculiar. The judge must instruct the jury on
> the law, and must tell them whether the prosecution has made out its
> case or the defence made good any defence. That provides scope for
> telling the jury what to do ie find the accused guilty. So long as the
> jury gets a real possibility of making a contrary finding, a guilty
> verdict will stand. It won't be quashed on the ground that the trial
> miscarried because the jury did not make a decision according to law.
> It is subject to appeal by the accused on the usual grounds, of course.
"The law is clear. It's not in dispute. You should go back to your jury
room now, elect a foreman, and return to court to perform your duty,
returning a verdict of guilty."
Sylvia.
Pelican
Jul 14, 2012, 4:41:12 AM7/14/12
to
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
the closing speeches. The defence (or the prosecution) might have something
to say about those directions, of course.
As it happens, the decline of the jury system is making these matters
anachronisms in many jurisdictions.
>
> Sylvia
Sylvia Else
Jul 14, 2012, 4:53:15 AM7/14/12
to
what the judge is likely to say, where it is clear on the facts that the
accused committed the offence, but the defence hopes that the jury will
still acquit.
> The defence (or the prosecution) might
> have something to say about those directions, of course.
something to be said on appeal. Has it ever happened in modern times?
Sylvia.
Pelican
Jul 14, 2012, 4:55:49 AM7/14/12
to
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
the trial judge to demand the verdict of guilty then and there, making it a
mere formal step, and quite another the demand the verdict of guilty after
the jury have had the opportunity to discuss the matter. In the story,
there was no doubt that the jury should have found the accused guilty, but
that would have removed the drama of the consequence of his release.
For me, an interesting bit was that the story chose not to give anyone
involved the realisation of the likely consequence of a not guilty outcome.
Pelican
Jul 14, 2012, 5:00:06 AM7/14/12
to
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
MontyCarlo
Jul 14, 2012, 5:32:47 AM7/14/12
to
convict?
I dont belive this case clearly says that at all .
In the original case the presiding Judge did not direct the jury to
convict, therefore in this appeal no decision was required on that point.
In this appeal only one of the 5 Justices (Murphy) mentions this point
and since he was not required to decide on this point his comments are
purely obiter dicta.
Of the other 4 Justices in the appeal;
Barwick CJ at #4 expressly states that "There is no need to consider
whether he [the presiding Judge] could have directed a verdict, as this
course was not followed
Mason J adopts Barwick's judgement, so he also does not consider the issue.
McTiernan also states there was no error or irrugualrity in the trial
and so he also does not consider if a Judge can direc5t a jury.
Jacobs J says "Whether he could have directed a verdict of guilty to be
entered does not arise:" so he does not address the question either.
Thus in the cited case only 1 out of of 5 Justices addresses the point,
and in the event his comments are only obiter as he was not required to
decide on this point.
So it is hard to see how this case can be cited to "very clearly" state
that point,
even if the proposition that a judge should not direct a jury to
convict may well be valid
Sylvia Else
Jul 14, 2012, 9:06:54 AM7/14/12
to
"In R. v. Brown and Brian (1949) VLR 177 the Full Court of the Supreme
Court of Victoria took the view that a verdict of guilty could not be
entered but it is clear that they also took the view that the trial
judge could direct the jury to return a verdict of guilty as was done in
the present case (1949) VLR, at p 180."
Unless I'm completely misreading that, he's saying that a direct verdict
of guilty was returned by the jury.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1977/10.html
appears to be a majority verdict in which it was held that a judge can
direct a jury to convict. This surprises me, because, amongst other
things, it does, as observed by Murphy J, mean that the accused has not
been tried by a jury, as required by s80 of the Constitution.
Yet it also seems that there is nothing a judge can do if a jury refuses
to obey the direction.
Sylvia.
Phil Allison
Jul 14, 2012, 10:45:34 AM7/14/12
to
"Sylvia Else is a Lying Pile of Shit "
( Snip loads of fuckwit Sylvia drivel )
> Yet it also seems that there is nothing a judge can do if a jury refuses
> to obey the direction.
rule the decisions of politically appointed (and hence corrupt) and also
mostly incompetent judges.
The compelling motive was to restore some semblance of public faith in the
legal process, which had fallen to a dangerously low level.
Dangerous = an immanent political revolution.
Every judge alive knows this very simple fact.
Not one of the fucking cunts likes it.
So tey try to circumvent it.
As you would expect.
... Phil
David Barnett
Jul 14, 2012, 4:00:54 PM7/14/12
to
What's the point of having a jury, if it has to obey a
judge's directive?
IMHO the judge should not have the right to give a
directive - advice, yes.
"the law is an ass" - at least sometimes.
--
David Barnett
judge's directive?
IMHO the judge should not have the right to give a
directive - advice, yes.
"the law is an ass" - at least sometimes.
--
David Barnett
peterwn
Jul 14, 2012, 5:49:32 PM7/14/12
to
On Jul 14, 8:41 pm, "Pelican" <water-bi...@sea.somewhere.org.ir>
Not sure what Australian state judges do, but New Zealand judges will
consider any concerns that the lawyers have with the summing up when
the jury is sent out. If the judge accepts the concerns (eg the judge
slipping up or overlooking something) the jury will be recalled for an
amendment to a summing up. This is by far preferable to an appeal and
possible re-trial.
In some cases it is a pity that juries are not able to be more
explicit. For example with a murder conviction it could be useful for
an appeal court to know if the jury convicted on the basis that the
offender intended to kill, or intended to inflict serious injuries
likely to result in death, or possibly one of the other criteria for
murder.
wrote:
> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:a6cgfe...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 14/07/2012 11:52 AM, Pelican wrote:
>
> >> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
> >>news:a6c0je...@mid.individual.net...
> >>> On 14/07/2012 7:37 AM, David Barnett wrote:
> >>>> In article <a6ahb2F10...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:a6cgfe...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 14/07/2012 11:52 AM, Pelican wrote:
>
> >> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
> >>news:a6c0je...@mid.individual.net...
> >>> On 14/07/2012 7:37 AM, David Barnett wrote:
> >>>> syl...@not.here.invalid says...
>
> >>>>> I was susprised to see a judge direct a verdict of guilty (though one
> >>>>> not followed by the jury) in Silk. I was under the impression that the
> >>>>> House of Lords had made it abundantly clear that a judge cannot do any
> >>>>> such thing.
>
> >>>>>http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd050210/w...
>
> >>>>> I was susprised to see a judge direct a verdict of guilty (though one
> >>>>> not followed by the jury) in Silk. I was under the impression that the
> >>>>> House of Lords had made it abundantly clear that a judge cannot do any
> >>>>> such thing.
>
consider any concerns that the lawyers have with the summing up when
the jury is sent out. If the judge accepts the concerns (eg the judge
slipping up or overlooking something) the jury will be recalled for an
amendment to a summing up. This is by far preferable to an appeal and
possible re-trial.
In some cases it is a pity that juries are not able to be more
explicit. For example with a murder conviction it could be useful for
an appeal court to know if the jury convicted on the basis that the
offender intended to kill, or intended to inflict serious injuries
likely to result in death, or possibly one of the other criteria for
murder.
Trevor
Jul 14, 2012, 6:07:57 PM7/14/12
to
"David Barnett" <dbar...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.2a6c7affa...@news.bigpond.com...
> "the law is an ass" - at least sometimes.
You mean sometimes it isn't?
Trevor.
DavidW
Jul 17, 2012, 6:45:09 PM7/17/12
to
Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 14/07/2012 12:54 AM, Phil Allison wrote:
>> "Stupider than Anyone Else on planet Earth "
>>>> I was susprised to see a judge direct a verdict of guilty (though
>>>> one not followed by the jury) in Silk.
>
> On 14/07/2012 12:54 AM, Phil Allison wrote:
>> "Stupider than Anyone Else on planet Earth "
>>>> I was susprised to see a judge direct a verdict of guilty (though
>>>> one not followed by the jury) in Silk.
>
> Ok, so you've figured it out. I didn't say it had just been aired.
Delayed reaction? I remember the episode, but not in enough detail any more to
comment on your OP.
DavidW
Jul 17, 2012, 7:05:43 PM7/17/12
to
Phil Allison wrote:
>
> Dangerous = an immanent political revolution.
imminent. Not a typo since 'a' and 'i' are far apart on the keyboard.
>
> Dangerous = an immanent political revolution.
Sylvia Else
Jul 17, 2012, 10:19:36 PM7/17/12
to
On 18/07/2012 8:45 AM, DavidW wrote:
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 14/07/2012 12:54 AM, Phil Allison wrote:
>>> "Stupider than Anyone Else on planet Earth "
>>>>> I was susprised to see a judge direct a verdict of guilty (though
>>>>> one not followed by the jury) in Silk.
>>
>> Ok, so you've figured it out. I didn't say it had just been aired.
>
> Delayed reaction?
No, just delayed watching.
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 14/07/2012 12:54 AM, Phil Allison wrote:
>>> "Stupider than Anyone Else on planet Earth "
>>>>> I was susprised to see a judge direct a verdict of guilty (though
>>>>> one not followed by the jury) in Silk.
>>
>> Ok, so you've figured it out. I didn't say it had just been aired.
>
> Delayed reaction?
Sylvia.
0 new messages