| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? 07:59 - Sep 21 with 6095 views | Lohengrin |
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-62971626
”The absolute discharge sentence means Rahman committed the offence but will not face any punishment or order.” | |
| An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it. |
| |  |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 08:30 - Sep 21 with 3720 views | Sirjohnalot |
Perfectly normal.
The court requires two psychiatrists (including one from the prosecution) to conduct an analysis of the defendant to see whether he has capacity to give evidence, instruct a solicitor, understand the court procedure, know the functions of a jury etc.
One of the psychs then has to give oral evidence to a judge and be cross examined. It’s a very carefully drawn out process, and is not take lightly.
I’ve had cases of people in mental health hospitals, under hospital orders who will never leave sexually assaulting staff and going through this process.
It’s carefully done and is really limited to cases where the person really hasn’t got a clue what’s going on.
I’ve got a lot on today but will try to post something later which explains it better.
In short, it’s correct otherwise you’d have people in prison with no capacity | | | |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 08:52 - Sep 21 with 3704 views | Jack11 |
He should be in some form of prison and in my opinion it’s an absolute disgrace that he isn’t. Here’s where I struggle with this judgement; a person commits a heinous crime and gets a long sentence and during said sentence they develop dementia or get old and frail. They don’t get discharged, they get moved to a more specialist institution and that’s how it should be. | | | |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 09:35 - Sep 21 with 3677 views | onehunglow |
Public need protecting John.
First and foremost | |
| |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 09:57 - Sep 21 with 3664 views | Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
If he has got dementia then that’s a worse punishment than anything the law of the land can throw at him.
But then he’s only 67. That’s quite young for dementia. The cynic in me suggests he could be faking it to avoid punishment but then I don’t know the facts. | |
| |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 10:09 - Sep 21 with 3652 views | onehunglow |
Never underestimate the devious nature of Man when under pressure | |
| |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 10:18 - Sep 21 with 3615 views | controversial_jack |
It's not that young for dementia. | | | |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 11:11 - Sep 21 with 3617 views | Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
It’s considerably younger than the average age of onset. | |
| |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 11:28 - Sep 21 with 3608 views | Jack123 |
On reading that article, the last paragraph seems like the cps are patting themselves on the back, for a job well done.
I find it far from that, from what I have read on another article, it's taken 4 years to reach this stage, and looking at it, back in 2020 November, the trial was abandoned due to a juror testing positive for covid, surely they should had a sub/replacement juror there.?
Here is the last paragraph:
'Tremendous courage'
Following the hearing, Lucy Dowdall of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), said: "The victim in this case showed tremendous courage coming forward, knowing the position of power Rahman held within the community.
"The passage of time and Rahman's ill health did not deter us from bringing this case to Court and giving the victim a voice.
"Our thanks go out to her for the unwavering support she has shown to this prosecution."
Hmm, tremendous courage coming forward, for basically naff all justice apart from the attacker being named. | |
| |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 11:33 - Sep 21 with 3602 views | Sirjohnalot |
Will reply fuller later, but all that would’ve been considered. He will,be in no state to harm anyone. That will be a fact.
You can’t lock up people with no mental capacity. The hospital order would’ve been granted if he was a danger. Two experts would’ve agreed. It’s a very, very carefully considered position.
Prison is to protect and to punish, neither would apply here.
Sorry limited reply, post later | | | |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 16:28 - Sep 21 with 3456 views | controversial_jack |
Yes it is , but unfortunately it's not rare at that age. Younger too! | | | |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 16:47 - Sep 21 with 3475 views | Flashberryjack |
What happens if he makes a miraculous recovery in a year or two ? | |
| |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 17:09 - Sep 21 with 3452 views | onehunglow |
No John. It is not a fact.
A fact is something that is incontrovertible . No human being is 100 % safe but the difference is those who can keep within the lines .
No parole board can be sure
No Court can
No human being can judge if someone WILL nit do anything .
Why take a risk.
I would not want anyone s son or daughter being unlucky | |
| |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 17:11 - Sep 21 with 3427 views | controversial_jack |
Sir John, doesn't set the guidelines, he is just saying it as it is, which is something many on this site have difficulty in accepting | | | |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 18:05 - Sep 21 with 3405 views | Sirjohnalot |
Then he will face trial. | | | |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 18:15 - Sep 21 with 3392 views | onehunglow |
It is prisons primary job to keep criminals away from who would otherwise be victims
If we do not put potential victims first then we put the most vulnerable at risk. | |
| |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 18:29 - Sep 21 with 3387 views | Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
But a jury has already decided he committed these offences in a crown court. If he were to make a miraculous recovery from dementia (probably the first person in history to do so) why would he need another trial? | |
| |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 18:42 - Sep 21 with 3362 views | onehunglow |
This is a classic case | |
| |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 19:44 - Sep 21 with 3321 views | Sirjohnalot |
I am not going to comment on this case as I know nothing about it.
In cases such as this, all the jury hear from is the prosecution witnesses, defendant cannot take part as he is not fit to stand trial, cannot give evidence in his own defence and cannot instruct his solicitor or barrister. He has not been found guilty of anything at all, all they could decide upon is whether or not there is a finding of fact that he has 'done an act'
I defended in these cases where I could not suggests eg in an assault case, that it was self defence when it may well be as I do not have instructions to that effect as he cannot tell me what his defence is.
Contributors who have suggested he is locked up, may I respectfully suggest, don't quite understand the law. Imagine for instance, a malicious allegation or mistaken identity against a person with dementia who cannot raise a defence, cannot make any comment on the allegation against him which may be completely untrue.
If this was your dad or brother, and you knew it was a pack of lies but because he was very unwell could not understand what was going on, would you be happy for him to go to prison for the rest of his life 'in case ?'
I'd hope you'd say no. People have assumed his guilt here, but that is not, at all what has happened.
If he was any kind of threat he would have been sent to a secure hospital. You have to be a criminal genius to fool two consultant psychiatrists a very senior prosecutor (you have to belong to a Rape and Serious Sexual Offences Unit) to prosecute these cases and a senior Judge (who also needs a 'sex crime qualification) .
He has not been found guilty of any offences whatsoever. There is a mammoth difference.
What I am saying is not an opinion. it is a veritable fact | | | |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 19:59 - Sep 21 with 3302 views | onehunglow |
Different standpoints John. | |
| |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 20:09 - Sep 21 with 3289 views | Sirjohnalot |
On this situation, no. You are absolutely wrong. You cannot lock someone up for the rest of their life who has not had a trial. There would be nothing to stop anyone accusing a person who has no capacity, of rape eg, and they’d not be able to defend themselves.
That is not justice.
An allegation if denied has to be tested, you are talking about locking someone up who has not been able to challenge the allegation through no fault of their own. He may be completely innocent. How can you possibly say that is a good idea ? | | | |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 20:14 - Sep 21 with 3285 views | onehunglow |
Standpoints differ
How can you possibly ignore the risk to innocent people .
“ may” is a key word
With respect | |
| |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 20:17 - Sep 21 with 3269 views | Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
“ all they could decide upon is whether or not there is a finding of fact that he has 'done an act' ”
So if a jury has found as a fact he has done an act in this instance the rape and his health recovers so he can face trial does a new trial override this fact in a court of law? | |
| |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 20:19 - Sep 21 with 3255 views | Sirjohnalot |
Because he has not been convicted of anything whatsoever. It is akin to someone accusing you of a serious offence, you being able to say anything in your defence, me defending you, person repeating it in court and locking you up for ever in case you may have done it.
Criminal standard is ‘so that you are sure ‘ for a reason.
I’m not sure how you cannot see the dangers in what you’re suggesting,
Complainants do lie | | | |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 20:25 - Sep 21 with 3239 views | Sirjohnalot |
Yea, they’ve not decided he’s raped someone, simply that an act of sex took place, but again that is without any cross examination, not hearing from the defence. Just one side of the story.
Last case I defended like this was a sexual assault in a mental institution where he is said to have touched the breasts of the nurses and started giggling.
He was completely insane, never going to leave, very unwell. All the hearing was them saying what happened, me simply asking if they were mistaken, them saying no, and the jury found ‘the act happened’
Normally, you’d need to show it was sexual as opposed to eg being an idiot, or an accident or there was consent,
He was sentenced to a hospital order which he was already on and would never leave.
My point v OHL is that this man may be entirely innocent. We can’t lock people up in prison for ever without a trial. | | | |
| What do you make of this, Sir John especially? on 20:33 - Sep 21 with 3201 views | Lohengrin |
”Yea, they’ve not decided he’s raped someone, simply that an act of sex took place.”
”The jury found Rahman did the acts alleged. They were one count of rape of a child under 13 and two counts of sexual assault.” | |
| An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it. |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
