On 13/11/2021 06:30, Calvin Henry-Cotnam wrote:
> kat (
little...@hotmail.com) said...
>> On 12/11/2021 13:49, Calvin Henry-Cotnam wrote:
>>> kat (
little...@hotmail.com) said...
>>>>
>>>> He might have got away with it as "somewhat spontaneous, looking out for
>>>> his son", but of course, he also arranged for Eli to lie in the first
>>>> trial, that was definitely perversion, and planned. Though I suppose he
>>>> could insist he believed Corey innocent at the time!
>>>
>>> I find it dubious that really believing in someone's innocence is a
>>> justification for breaking the law. Stefan basically tampered with a
>>> witness.
>>
>> He can suggest it at trial, defence, or mitigation, see if he gets
>> believed. We, of course, wouldn't. :-)
>
> True. I suspect that this would not, or at least should not, be a
> consideration when it comes to determining guilt. Though I could see
> it making a difference when it comes to sentencing.
Yes. In that link I provided before there are a number of points regarding the
assessment of the conduct ( where there is a Public Justic offence) and if
there should be a charge at all. Public intersest factors might suggest not.
but when they do go ahead the same considerations will apply when sentence is
being considered.
>
>
>>>> And I think Eli must have come clean later, after the arrest, so maybe
>>>> he will still get done. Eli also perverted justice, but he's a kid, his
>>>> dad presumably applied some pressure to him.
>>>
>>> Eli's dad accepted a job that he would not otherwise been offered, and
>>> perhaps may not have had the qualifications enough for anyone to call
>>> him in for an interview if he had applied.
>>>
>>> Doing so and pressuring Eli to give false testimony seems to be in the
>>> same basket as witness tampering.
>>>
>>
>> It is, but it is Stefan and Eli's dad who are guilty. I was setting out the
>> defence for Eli, who is also guilty but I suspect would only be cautioned at
>> most due to that pressure.
>
> Yes, I suspect Eli could receive a caution, or perhaps a non-custodial
> sentence. The real culprits, where quid pro quo was involved, are Eli's
> father and Stefan.
>
Looking closer at that link it is firstly Stefan who is to blame, in the
original trial. Under perverting the course of justice comes "persuading, or
attempting to persuade, by intimidation, harm or otherwise, a witness not to
give evidence, to alter his evidence or to give false evidence". Eli also by
"agreeing to give false evidence" but Eli's actual offence is perjury. But it
isn't really in the public interest to come down hard on him, he was intimidated.
It would be good if there was, at some point, a passing reference to something
about Stefan at least getting some sort of sentence.
--
kat
>^..^<