Rights of the accused

English law gives powers to prosecutors and rights to the alleged perpetrator. It was said that it is better for ten guilty men to walk away than for one innocent to be imprisoned. It is a reasonable view. These are the Rights of the accused

Fair trial ex Wiki
The right to fair trial is an essential right in all countries respecting the rule of law. A trial in these countries that is deemed unfair will typically be restarted, or its verdict voided.

Various rights associated with a fair trial are explicitly proclaimed in Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, as well as numerous other constitutions and declarations throughout the world. There is no binding international law that defines what is or is not a fair trial, for example the right to a jury trial and other important procedures vary from nation to nation....

The right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings
Historically the right to a fair trial was regarded as more important in criminal proceedings, because the consequences for the individual are more severe in criminal proceedings compared to civil proceedings. In criminal proceedings the right to a fair trial include the following fair trial rights:

This right might or might not be given. It is breached in political cases such Regina versus Ponting where the judge had clearly been told to get a guilty verdict. That is when the Jury is needed. They got it right with an acquittal. It is currently [ November 2011 being breached in the Stephen Lawrence case ].


Speedy trial ex Wiki
Speedy trial refers to one of the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution to defendants in criminal proceedings. The right to a speedy trial, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, is intended to ensure that defendants are not subjected to unreasonably lengthy incarceration prior to a fair trial. In adjudicating speedy trial claims, the Supreme Court has developed a four-part test that considers the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the defendant's assertion of his right to a speedy trial, and the prejudice to the defendant (Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972)).

Violations of the principle, such as where the state has failed to bring the case to trial for an "unreasonable" length of time, may be a cause for dismissal of a criminal case.

In the United States, the length of time can either be defined by statute (for example, in New York, the prosecution must be "ready for trial" within six months on all felonies except murder, or the charges are dismissed by action of law without regard to the merits of the case), or determined by a court under a substantive theory based on the Sixth Amendment; which states: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial..." This argument is typically made in cases in which a significant amount of time has lapsed between the date of the commission of the crime and the date of arrest.

Most, if not all, statutes defining the period of speedy trial time also include various exceptions to this rule. Examples of such exceptions are periods of time in which the delay preceding the trial is due to the request of the defense, or if there is good cause.
This is reasonable law but not English law, albeit vague enough to make lawyers richer using Red Herrings to drag things out.


Jury trial
A jury trial (or trial by jury) is a legal proceeding in which a jury either makes a decision or makes findings of fact which are then applied by a judge. It is distinguished from a bench trial, in which a judge or panel of judges make all decisions.

Jury trials are used in a significant share of serious criminal cases in all Anglo-American (aka "common law") legal systems, and juries or lay judges have been incorporated into the legal systems of many civil law countries for criminal cases. Only the United States and Canada make routine use of jury trials in a wide variety of non-criminal cases.
A jury is formed only for a trial. It is not part of the legal establishment which means it cannot be got at so easily which is why it is loathed by the other three branches of government. It is entitled and able to ignore the judge's orders. See Jury Law for more and better details.


Right to counsel is currently generally regarded as a constituent of the right to a fair trial, allowing for the defendant to be assisted by counsel (i.e. lawyers), and if he cannot afford his own lawyer, requiring that the government should appoint one for him/her, or pay his/her legal expenses. However, this has not historically always been the case in all countries.

England and Wales
Before the Prisoners' Counsel Act 1836, felony defendants did not have the formal right of being represented by a counsel in English courts although, from the mid-18th century such had been routinely indulged where defendants could afford them. It was thought, at the time, that the presence of defence counsel would serve no purpose in criminal proceedings, where what matters is deciding fact: the defendant should simply tell the truth to the court, without the interference of some counsel. William Hawkins in his A Treatise of the Pleas of the Crown: or a system of the principal matters, relating to that subject, digested under their proper heads Vol. II. of 1721 wrote:

"[I]t requires no manner of Skill to make a plain and honest Defence, which ... is always the best; the Simplicity and Innocence, artless and ingenuous Behaviour of one whose Conscience acquits him, having something in it more moving and convincing than the highest Eloquence of a Person speaking in a cause not their own."

This changed as more and more prosecutions became, for reasons of public policy, funded by the Crown – all successful prosecutions from 1778 onwards being so funded – who employed professional counsel. An innate sense of fair-play prevailed therefore, permitting defence counsel to be present, albeit at the defendant’s own expense. Penurious defendants were obviously at a significant disadvantage.
The expense of using lawyers is a major barrier to achieving a result.


Presumption Of Innocence
The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat, is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. Application of this principle is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, recognized in many nations. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted.
This is a right that is being grossly abused in the Stephen Lawrence case where three Englishmen are being tried for the second time having beaten charges before. Blair perverted the law to do them down. It is political. It is racist. It is malicious. It is criminal.


Exclusionary rule
The exclusionary rule is a legal principle in the United States, under constitutional law, which holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is sometimes inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law.
This is good law apart from the 'sometimes' bit of it. It is not English law though which means corrupt investigators can get away with crime.


Self-incrimination is the act of accusing oneself of a crime for which a person can then be prosecuted. Self-incrimination can occur either directly or indirectly: directly, by means of interrogation where information of a self-incriminatory nature is disclosed; indirectly, when information of a self-incriminatory nature is disclosed voluntarily without pressure from another person.

The right against self-incrimination originated in England and Wales. In countries deriving their laws as an extension of the history of English Common Law, a body of law has grown around the concept of providing individuals with the means to protect themselves from self-incrimination.

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 amended the right to silence by allowing inferences to be drawn by the jury in cases where a suspect refuses to explain something, and then later produces an explanation (in other words the jury is entitled to infer that the accused fabricated the explanation at a later date, as he or she refused to provide the explanation during the time of the Police questioning. The jury is also free not to make such an inference).
The moral here is do NOT talk at the time and do NOT talk later. This is not always easy when the police are harassing someone. See Resistance to Interrogation for more on this one.


Double Jeopardy
Double jeopardy is being tried twice for the same crime. The Englishmen accused of doing the Lawrence Job are being tried for the second time because Her Majesty's Government has perverted the law to get them. They are, like Her Allegedly Loyal Opposition malicious Racists who hate England.
The double jeopardy is needed to restrain corrupt governments. It is more important than ever with Fascists like Blair involved.


Errors & omissions, broken links, cock ups, over-emphasis, malice [ real or imaginary ] or whatever; if you find any I am open to comment.

Email me at Mike Emery. All financial contributions are cheerfully accepted. If you want to keep it private, use my PGP key.  Home

Updated  on Tuesday, 17 March 2015 08:19:02