• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Harrys Trial

hydra said:
The prosecution can only appeal if there is an error of law. They can't appeal just because they don't like the verdict.

Edit: And you'd have to imagine, given the high profile of the case and the calibre of lawyers involved, that the judge will be pretty fudging careful not to make errors of law.
Click to expand...

no, the judge isnt there to read law books. he is there to listen to the two sides, and inform the jury as to their obligations. If either side wishes to appeal, they have to ask permission of the judge, which is then granted or not, if its granted then another judge will hear the appeal and decide wether the appeal will result in a better outcome.

edit* permission is applied for at a later date, within reasonable time period.
 
Last edited:
Howard Webb said:
no, the judge isnt there to read law books. he is there to listen to the two sides, and inform the jury as to their obligations. If either side wishes to appeal, they have to ask permission of the judge, which is then granted or not, if its granted then another judge will hear the appeal and decide wether the appeal will result in a better outcome.

edit* permission is applied for at a later date, within reasonable time period.
Click to expand...

Congratulations on your wikipedia knowledge of the appeals process, but you will find that the vast majority of criminal appeals are based on the errors of law that the judge may or may not have made when directing the jury.
 
hydra said:
Congratulations on your wikipedia knowledge of the appeals process, but you will find that the vast majority of criminal appeals are based on the errors of law that the judge may or may not have made when directing the jury.
Click to expand...

no need for the tone mate. My point was the judge can only hear what is presented to him by the two sides. If one side makes an error, the other will appeal it. It has very little to do with the judge, whos not really allowed to bring his own interpretation of the law to the proceedings, excepting that they will argue the point on the day. If one side makes a legal point, the other side must respond to it - its not really for the judge to say one perspective is wrong or right because hes impartial.

sorry for having a fudging opinion
 
totman said:
If he's found guilty, it has been made perfectly clear that it was because he lied to a journalist. Not to the Police, Courtroom, or Tax Office.
But a journalist, who was employed by a newspaper that has been shut down for spying.

I will support Harry all day long. What perfection.
Click to expand...

Other way around actually.

If Harry is found guilty, it will be because the jury believes he told the truth to the journalist but lied to everyone else - HMRC, the police and the court.
 
jimmyb said:
Other way around actually.

If Harry is found guilty, it will be because the jury believes he told the truth to the journalist but lied to everyone else - HMRC, the police and the court.
Click to expand...

He admitted lying to the journo. There is zero evidence that that isnt the case.

Which means, that, until they prove otherwise, its Harry's word against the taped interview with a journo for a disgraced newspaper.

The Police, Prosecution or Tax Office have NOTHING that contradicts his story, or nothing that they can categorically say he did that was illegal. Their entire case is built around the News of The World.

Like I said, laughable and perfection.
 
totman said:
He admitted lying to the journo. There is zero evidence that that isnt the case.

Which means, that, until they prove otherwise, its Harry's word against the taped interview with a journo for a disgraced newspaper.

The Police, Prosecution or Tax Office have NOTHING that contradicts his story, or nothing that they can categorically say he did that was illegal. Their entire case is built around the News of The World.

Like I said, laughable and perfection.
Click to expand...

Yes, Harry has admitted lying to Beasley. That is his defence.

But you argued that:

"If he's found guilty, it has been made perfectly clear that it was because he lied to a journalist".

I'm merely pointing out that, if Harry is found guilty, it will be because the jury don't believe his defence; don't believe that he lied to Beasley. It will be because they believe, instead, that Harry told the truth to Beasley and subsequently lied to everyone else.

And just to be clear, the prosecution case isn't "built around the NOTW". It's built on the argument that Harry has been incriminated by his own, recorded words.
 
Last edited:
jimmyb said:
And just to be clear, the prosecution case isn't "built around the NOTW". It's built on the argument that Harry has been incriminated by his own, recorded words.
Click to expand...

Which boils down to the fact that nothing he has done has been illegal, that anyone can prove. The account was legal, why was it even brought up. Harry had sole control of his own bank account. So what?

It was a "secret account"....in his dogs name and date of birth???

The money was NOT the same as the difference in contract.

He and Mandaric's story adds up. Nothing he has said to the Police, Crown or Inland Revenue has contradicted itself.

So, the prosecutions entire case is built around the NOTW. A paper shut down for spying.

Laughable and perfection that it got this far.
 
totman said:
Which boils down to the fact that nothing he has done has been illegal, that anyone can prove. The account was legal, why was it even brought up. Harry had sole control of his own bank account. So what?

It was a "secret account"....in his dogs name and date of birth???

The money was NOT the same as the difference in contract.

He and Mandaric's story adds up. Nothing he has said to the Police, Crown or Inland Revenue has contradicted itself.

So, the prosecutions entire case is built around the NOTW. A paper shut down for spying.

Laughable and perfection that it got this far.
Click to expand...

I hope that you are right.

But, sadly, the jury may not share your opinion.

As I said, it all comes down to whether the jury believes that Harry genuinely was lying to Beasley. Therein lies the rub.
 
The jury in the trail of Harry Redknapp and Milan Mandaric, who are facing charges of cheating the public revenue, were unable to reach a unanimous verdict after almost four hours of deliberation today


Judge asked the Jury for a unanimous decision? - never going to happen
 
GGyid said:
The jury in the trail of Harry Redknapp and Milan Mandaric, who are facing charges of cheating the public revenue, were unable to reach a unanimous verdict after almost four hours of deliberation today


Judge asked the Jury for a unanimous decision? - never going to happen
Click to expand...

Maybe the judges cup is half full?
 
What happens if the Jury cannot come to a decision?
Do they have an unlimited amoutn of time to reach a conclusion?
 
probably if they can't reach a unanimous verdict tomorrow judge will then tell them he'll accept a majority verdict where at least 10 must agree.

if they can't even manage that it will be a mistrial and the CPS will have to decide whether they want to bother having a retrial and doing it all again later in the year
 
Simples we find where the jury staying and we fudging get to them we fudge them up good and fudging proper, danny dyer style, ave it large fudge yeah.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back