| Giggs 11:44 - Sep 7 with 1953 views | sP7qupUf |
Set to face a retrial. |  | | |  |
| Giggs on 11:49 - Sep 7 with 1947 views | Sirjohnalot |
They’ll have spoke to the complainant, obtained her views and carried on. Would be the same in any case |  | | |
| Giggs on 12:49 - Sep 7 with 1878 views | GixerJack |
| Giggs on 11:49 - Sep 7 by Sirjohnalot |
They’ll have spoke to the complainant, obtained her views and carried on. Would be the same in any case |
How many times could this go on for? |  | | |
| Giggs on 12:59 - Sep 7 with 1864 views | Sirjohnalot |
| Giggs on 12:49 - Sep 7 by GixerJack |
How many times could this go on for? |
Its very rare to have more than one re trial. if there is no result the second time, I'd be very surprised if they went again. | | | |
| Giggs on 13:01 - Sep 7 with 1861 views | GixerJack |
| Giggs on 12:59 - Sep 7 by Sirjohnalot |
Its very rare to have more than one re trial. if there is no result the second time, I'd be very surprised if they went again. |
But if it goes against him there’s still an appeal of some sort I take it | | | |
| Giggs on 13:15 - Sep 7 with 1838 views | Sirjohnalot |
| Giggs on 13:01 - Sep 7 by GixerJack |
But if it goes against him there’s still an appeal of some sort I take it |
Depends
In the Magistrates Court you have an automatic right of appeal to the Crown, principally because the Magistrates are lay people and often make crazy decisions.
In the Crown Court its a lot more tricky. There is not automatic right of appeal. You have to seek 'permission to appeal' from another Judge on the ground that the trial Judge was wrong in fact or law, eg, allowed bad character (previous convictions) to be put before the court when they were not relevant eg if Giggs had convictions for shoplifting, as that is nothing to do with the case or his misdirected the jury on an area of law. (if eg he had gone 'no comment' in his interview, and he did not direct them properly on whether or not they should draw an inference ) You certainly cannot appeal just because you don't like the verdict otherwise everyone convicted would appeal
This type of case is so straight forward, it is unlikely that the Judge would misdirect the Jury. I'm in Manchester every day and our Judges there are, on a whole, excellent (some aren't very nice, but legally speaking spot on)
Given the high profile nature of the case, it will be given to one of the more senior ones. HHJ Hilary Manley who had this case, is no nonsense, but a very good Judge indeed, | | | |
| Giggs on 18:54 - Sep 7 with 1727 views | EagleEye |
Wasn’t it possible for the court to request a majority verdict from the jury ? I know the judge asked for a 10 or 11 -1 that wasn’t forthcoming.
This just sounds like a massive expense for the taxpayer to have a re-trial. Clearly the evidence wasn’t convincing enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt. |  | | |
| Giggs on 19:09 - Sep 7 with 1711 views | Sirjohnalot |
| Giggs on 18:54 - Sep 7 by EagleEye |
Wasn’t it possible for the court to request a majority verdict from the jury ? I know the judge asked for a 10 or 11 -1 that wasn’t forthcoming.
This just sounds like a massive expense for the taxpayer to have a re-trial. Clearly the evidence wasn’t convincing enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt. |
Yes, and that’s what she did. The minimum required for a verdict is 10-2 or 10-1 here (as one juror was discharged due to ill health )
The allegation is a serious one, certainly interests of justice to proceed if the complainant wants to do it again. If the current court backlog remains, this should be adjoined again next year to the year after (if it was a non famous person) it probably would as there’s no room to hear rape and serious assault cases and people in custody. | | | |
| Giggs on 12:53 - Sep 8 with 1588 views | EagleEye |
| Giggs on 19:09 - Sep 7 by Sirjohnalot |
Yes, and that’s what she did. The minimum required for a verdict is 10-2 or 10-1 here (as one juror was discharged due to ill health )
The allegation is a serious one, certainly interests of justice to proceed if the complainant wants to do it again. If the current court backlog remains, this should be adjoined again next year to the year after (if it was a non famous person) it probably would as there’s no room to hear rape and serious assault cases and people in custody. |
I know relatively little about majority verdicts in such cases is there guidance on what is acceptable i.e would the judge accept a 9-3, 8-4, 7-5 one way or the other or does it have to be an overwhelming majority like 11-1 or 10-2 ?
Do these types of processes differ for murder, manslaughter ir rape type trials ? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Giggs on 13:43 - Sep 8 with 1550 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
UK justice seems a slow unsatisfactory sort of affair it seems to me. Like medicine I do all I can to avoid lawyers and doctors whenever possible.
It seems to be geared, unlike most things to spending a lot of time. Lawyers and legal people are paid on a time basis often so it may be in their interest to spin things out and keep the tills clicking over. Giggs has a bulging wallet so why not kick the can over to 2023 and beyond?
"Controlling behaviour" i did not know that was crime? Giggs is innocent until proven guilty. A lot of time and money has been spent and the prosecution has not proven their case. They want another go at it? Why? It is not the job of Giggs to prove he is innocent it seem to me. As we all know he is innocent until proven guilty and they could not a get a jury to find him guilty.
I am getting the feeling that "the people" work to protect the interests of lawyers not the other way around. What deserving cases are not being prosecuted because of this high profile case going to court again. |  |
| |
| Giggs on 14:42 - Sep 8 with 1539 views | theloneranger |
| Giggs on 13:43 - Sep 8 by ReslovenSwan1 |
UK justice seems a slow unsatisfactory sort of affair it seems to me. Like medicine I do all I can to avoid lawyers and doctors whenever possible.
It seems to be geared, unlike most things to spending a lot of time. Lawyers and legal people are paid on a time basis often so it may be in their interest to spin things out and keep the tills clicking over. Giggs has a bulging wallet so why not kick the can over to 2023 and beyond?
"Controlling behaviour" i did not know that was crime? Giggs is innocent until proven guilty. A lot of time and money has been spent and the prosecution has not proven their case. They want another go at it? Why? It is not the job of Giggs to prove he is innocent it seem to me. As we all know he is innocent until proven guilty and they could not a get a jury to find him guilty.
I am getting the feeling that "the people" work to protect the interests of lawyers not the other way around. What deserving cases are not being prosecuted because of this high profile case going to court again. |
Wrong ...
29th December 2015 ...
"The government’s new coercive or controlling behaviour offence will mean victims who experience the type of behaviour that stops short of serious physical violence, but amounts to extreme psychological and emotional abuse, can bring their perpetrators to justice."
The offence will carry a maximum of 5 years’ imprisonment, a fine or both - and is now part of the Serious Crime Act 2015 |  |
| Everyday above ground ... Is a good day! 😎 |
| |
| Giggs on 14:46 - Sep 8 with 1531 views | Sirjohnalot |
| Giggs on 12:53 - Sep 8 by EagleEye |
I know relatively little about majority verdicts in such cases is there guidance on what is acceptable i.e would the judge accept a 9-3, 8-4, 7-5 one way or the other or does it have to be an overwhelming majority like 11-1 or 10-2 ?
Do these types of processes differ for murder, manslaughter ir rape type trials ? |
No, that would be really dangerous and get more towards a civil (balance of probabilities) the consequences of being convicted of any criminal offence could be devastating. it has to be right that if the State accuses any of us of a breach of a criminal law, it must follow that they have to prove it to a very high standard that a group of normal people agree on. (Majority direction is only given when it is obvious there will not be full agreement) | | | |
| Giggs on 14:55 - Sep 8 with 1516 views | Sirjohnalot |
| Giggs on 13:43 - Sep 8 by ReslovenSwan1 |
UK justice seems a slow unsatisfactory sort of affair it seems to me. Like medicine I do all I can to avoid lawyers and doctors whenever possible.
It seems to be geared, unlike most things to spending a lot of time. Lawyers and legal people are paid on a time basis often so it may be in their interest to spin things out and keep the tills clicking over. Giggs has a bulging wallet so why not kick the can over to 2023 and beyond?
"Controlling behaviour" i did not know that was crime? Giggs is innocent until proven guilty. A lot of time and money has been spent and the prosecution has not proven their case. They want another go at it? Why? It is not the job of Giggs to prove he is innocent it seem to me. As we all know he is innocent until proven guilty and they could not a get a jury to find him guilty.
I am getting the feeling that "the people" work to protect the interests of lawyers not the other way around. What deserving cases are not being prosecuted because of this high profile case going to court again. |
it is indeed slow and unsatisfactory, which is why we are striking. The devastation of legal aid, the closure of courts and the mass migration of criminal barristers mean there is a huge backlog of cases (way before COVID)
There is no 'hourly rate' legal aid criminal cases are a fixed fee. We do not get paid for preparation, for conferences, for going to prison to see clients.
The decision to undertake a retrial is the decision of the complainant and the employed CPS (on a wage, not effected by case in court) The prosecuting barrister has no say in this and being a QC he will have far far bigger cases that Giggs, and won't give a fig if it went to someone else.
The allegation is a serious one, allegedly involving a headbutt, sharing naked images, controlling behaviour and 2 assaults in a domestic setting. I said in a previous post there was always going to be a retrial, nothing to do with Giggs. It's happened in many cases I've been involved in.
What do you mean the 'interests of lawyers ?' My diary is fully booked to the middle of next year, the two QCs involved in this will be even busier, they will not be desperate for a simple case like this.
No case will not be prosecute due to this, other cases will be delayed but that, again is down to the woeful attack on the legal profession and devastation of our fees | | | |
| Giggs on 22:58 - Sep 8 with 1444 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Giggs on 14:42 - Sep 8 by theloneranger |
Wrong ...
29th December 2015 ...
"The government’s new coercive or controlling behaviour offence will mean victims who experience the type of behaviour that stops short of serious physical violence, but amounts to extreme psychological and emotional abuse, can bring their perpetrators to justice."
The offence will carry a maximum of 5 years’ imprisonment, a fine or both - and is now part of the Serious Crime Act 2015 |
I was right not wrong. I genuinely did not know it was a crime. I do now thank you for your research. | |
| |
| Giggs on 23:14 - Sep 8 with 1434 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
| Giggs on 14:55 - Sep 8 by Sirjohnalot |
it is indeed slow and unsatisfactory, which is why we are striking. The devastation of legal aid, the closure of courts and the mass migration of criminal barristers mean there is a huge backlog of cases (way before COVID)
There is no 'hourly rate' legal aid criminal cases are a fixed fee. We do not get paid for preparation, for conferences, for going to prison to see clients.
The decision to undertake a retrial is the decision of the complainant and the employed CPS (on a wage, not effected by case in court) The prosecuting barrister has no say in this and being a QC he will have far far bigger cases that Giggs, and won't give a fig if it went to someone else.
The allegation is a serious one, allegedly involving a headbutt, sharing naked images, controlling behaviour and 2 assaults in a domestic setting. I said in a previous post there was always going to be a retrial, nothing to do with Giggs. It's happened in many cases I've been involved in.
What do you mean the 'interests of lawyers ?' My diary is fully booked to the middle of next year, the two QCs involved in this will be even busier, they will not be desperate for a simple case like this.
No case will not be prosecute due to this, other cases will be delayed but that, again is down to the woeful attack on the legal profession and devastation of our fees |
Thank you for taking the trouble to explain. It is not a field I am well versed in and I am not immune to opinions not backed up by detailed information. It seems to me this is a very straight forward case and it should not take years to resolve.
A jury of 12 good men and women were not convinced of his guilt. I can only assume a new jury would be similarly minded. Why would it not be? | |
| |
| Giggs on 18:02 - Sep 9 with 1366 views | Sirjohnalot |
| Giggs on 23:14 - Sep 8 by ReslovenSwan1 |
Thank you for taking the trouble to explain. It is not a field I am well versed in and I am not immune to opinions not backed up by detailed information. It seems to me this is a very straight forward case and it should not take years to resolve.
A jury of 12 good men and women were not convinced of his guilt. I can only assume a new jury would be similarly minded. Why would it not be? |
One reasons is that they are different people. The last trial may only have a few people not agreeing (remember they lost one due to illness) , the next may decide very quickly. Also witnesses may come across differently a second time. 12 people may see something completely different to another group of 12.
Ultimately justice must be done as well as seen to be done. If what is said to have happened is true, he needs to be brought to justice. Likewise he needs to be able to clear his name, which hasn’t happened at the moment. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
