On 16 Sep, 08:13, Doug
riseup.net> wrote:> On 15 Sep, 09:03, BrianW
hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> On 15 Sep, 07:47, Doug
riseup.net> wrote:>
>>> On 14 Sep, 23:05, BrianW
hotmail.com> wrote:>
>>>> On 14 Sep, 07:51, Doug
riseup.net> wrote:>
>>>>>> These are all just criminal damage. E.O.S.
>
>>>>> You are just saying that because you fear for your car.
>
>>>>> Well not according to a growing legal precedent. It seems judges and
>>>>> juries are finally revolting against increasingly repressive UK laws
>>>>> which makes political dissent illegal.
>
>>>> A jury verdict doesn't create a precedent. Â Each jury is required to
>>>> come to its own decision on the facts presented to it, and is not
>>>> bound in any way by what a previous jury, on another set of facts,
>>>> decided. Â Once again, you demonstrate your total ignorance of how the
>>>> legal system works.
>
>>> Pot kettle. You are surely not trying to claim that previous cases do
>>> not set legal precedences? Where else would they come from then?
>
>> Legal precedents in English criminal law come from judges' decisions
>> in the Court of Appeal and House of Lords. Basically, if a defendant
>> considers that the judge at his trial summed up the law wrongly in his
>> summing up to the jury, he can seek leave to appeal. Â Alternatively,
>> if the prosecution considers that the summing up was wrong, it can
>> appeal (the defendant's acquittal is unaffected, but the law can still
>> be clarified).
>
>> The Court of Appeal (or House of Lords, if it gets that far) looks at
>> what the judge told the jury, and decides whether it reflects what the
>> law is (or should be - that is how the common law system advances).
>
>>> You
>>> are obviously not aware that there are also non-binding precedents.
>
>> Er, I am, but a jury won't get told "10 juries before you convicted on
>> similar facts". Â The law comes from the judges, not from juries.
>
>>> Add that to your abysmal lack of knowledge.
>
>> Lack of knowledge being a law degree and 7 years working as a lawyer,
>> right?
>
> Well you should be up to tackling this one then. Suppose E-ON takes
> the case to appeal and loses, will that then set a precedent?
Yes, possibly, as I said above.
>Or, if
> there is no case at all how can there then be an appeal or a
> precedent? There has to be a case in the first place for a precedent
> to exist, as I claimed, semanticist.
What on earth are you talking about? The problem is that you don't
understand what "precedent" means in the common law context.
> BTW, congrats on avoiding personal abuse and wrong attributes in your
> post this time around. You seem to be learning at last.
By wrong attributes, do you mean calling you Mr Bollen, Mr Bollen?
