Amy: the gift that keeps on giving

[John Wright]

I’ve had a mass purge and clear out of posts and a couple of posters. 

[Ringy Rose]

1 hour ago, Declan said:

I think the paper got a lot of flack for the museum guy story but that let the main culprits - the AG's department off the hook. It was the decision to prosecute with feeble evidence that caused the problems

Absolutely. The papers only reported what the AGs and police had put forward as their case. And the case fell apart in seconds.

It's also an important point about witnesses coming forward. And I've seen cases where a witness came forward to corroborate the defendant, so it isn't just to strengthen a prosecution.

[littlebushy]

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

I’ve had a mass purge and clear out of posts and a couple of posters. 

Some of my best work gets done whilst on the shitter too.... 

[Roger Mexico]

2 hours ago, TheTeapot said:

I'm not saying it's wrong to report on these things (pre-trial appearances and the like), more that I don't think I like it.

The biggest problem is that trials sometimes aren't reported at all - even the verdict.  So googling someone's name will produce various items listing all the things they have been accused of, but then nothing to say what the result of the eventual trial is - or even whether it ever took place.

It's not like it is even supplemented by anything official.  There's very few official reports on the judgments.im website, except for appeals.  For example even though the McNicholas Inquest took place a couple of weeks ago, there's nothing there yet and may never be.  We only know the result and the Coroner's remarks because there happened to be (and this happens very rarely) a BBC reporter there.

[Gladys]

4 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

The biggest problem is that trials sometimes aren't reported at all - even the verdict.  So googling someone's name will produce various items listing all the things they have been accused of, but then nothing to say what the result of the eventual trial is - or even whether it ever took place.

It's not like it is even supplemented by anything official.  There's very few official reports on the judgments.im website, except for appeals.  For example even though the McNicholas Inquest took place a couple of weeks ago, there's nothing there yet and may never be.  We only know the result and the Coroner's remarks because there happened to be (and this happens very rarely) a BBC reporter there.

That is my gripe also.  You see adjournments but never any reports on the decision at the adjourned hearing  or even if it has taken place.  Even more difficult to get the outcome of many coroner's inquests.  There are genuine reasons for wanting to know these things, it is not always nosiness.  In an open legal system these things should be reported.  

[Declan]

If it's important enough to report the adjournment - it's important enough to report that verdict. I suppose though an editor's criteria is newsworthiness - and someone accused of something is inherently more newsworthy than someone didn't do anything, 

[Roger Mexico]

5 minutes ago, Declan said:

If it's important enough to report the adjournment - it's important enough to report that verdict. I suppose though an editor's criteria is newsworthiness - and someone accused of something is inherently more newsworthy than someone didn't do anything, 

It's more a matter of resources.  It's a big commitment to have a reporter sit through a full trial, things like adjournments only take a matter of minutes.

[Gladys]

2 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

It's more a matter of resources.  It's a big commitment to have a reporter sit through a full trial, things like adjournments only take a matter of minutes.

The matter I'm thinking about was fully reported in its various stages up until the trial was abandoned due to a conflict of a juror.  There was to be a new trial in January this year.  Nothing.

[TheTeapot]

2 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

The biggest problem is that trials sometimes aren't reported at all - even the verdict.  So googling someone's name will produce various items listing all the things they have been accused of, but then nothing to say what the result of the eventual trial is - or even whether it ever took place.

I take your point Roger, the court reporting is really hit and miss, but I kinda think the bigger problem is individuals having their photo stuck on the front of the paper (or even just a column on page 7) and being accused of stuff, when they haven't actually done anything at all.

You might think that kind of thing should be rare, but we've had loads of cases here where the prosecution have been useless and the judge/deemster/whatever have publicly bollocked them for even bringing it.

We had this debate, or similar, before. Might have been when the forums former copper said words to the effect of if you've come to the attention of the police you're guilty of something.

[Peter Layman]

49 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

I take your point Roger, the court reporting is really hit and miss, but I kinda think the bigger problem is individuals having their photo stuck on the front of the paper (or even just a column on page 7) and being accused of stuff, when they haven't actually done anything at all.

You might think that kind of thing should be rare, but we've had loads of cases here where the prosecution have been useless and the judge/deemster/whatever have publicly bollocked them for even bringing it.

We had this debate, or similar, before. Might have been when the forums former copper said words to the effect of if you've come to the attention of the police you're guilty of something.

It's still happening now. Without these the so called local newspapers would have nothing to fill their pages. Yet if and when they have to apologise, you are afforded the tiniest of columns amongst the adverts where hopefully nobody will see it

[Gladys]

Why doesn't the courts website cover the outcome of cases?  They don't have to.publish every judgement, but just the decision in whose favour, the award and/or penalty.  If it is a complex legal decision the judgement can also be published. 

[Roger Mexico]

3 hours ago, TheTeapot said:

I take your point Roger, the court reporting is really hit and miss, but I kinda think the bigger problem is individuals having their photo stuck on the front of the paper (or even just a column on page 7) and being accused of stuff, when they haven't actually done anything at all.

There's that as well, but it's made worse the way the internet preserves these for years (ever?).  So people just assume that things are true based on the pre-trial hearings (for which there may be several news items) in the absence of any reporting of the verdict, not even inaccurately.  The broadcasters are often worse for this.

[Chie]

Wait. Isn't she the one with the nutty parents who bought the titles Lord and Lady?.

[Numbnuts]

39 minutes ago, Chie said:

Wait. Isn't she the one with the nutty parents who bought the titles Lord and Lady?.

Yep , De Yoxall 

Edited November 5, 2021 by Numbnuts

[Derek Flint]

16 hours ago, TheTeapot said:

We had this debate, or similar, before. Might have been when the forums former copper said words to the effect of if you've come to the attention of the police you're guilty of something.

It was something along those lines, but let’s just refine it. 

First of all, remember that the first bar for a a copper is ‘reasonable suspicion’. That’s been described as an ‘informed hunch’. It is a very low point at which the investigation starts to build.

So a police officer investigates. That might be as a result of something they directly witnessed, or evidence they were presented with via a third party. The quality of that investigation varies, but at some point, sergeant, or a prosecutor at the CPS or AG’s in the Manx context has to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to charge the suspect with an offence. The bar is set at ‘is there a reasonable prospect of a conviction at court?’. There are other tests which are outlined in the Code for Crown Prosecutors which can be found online.

When it gets to court, the matter has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. That is quite rightly, a very high bar. Not reaching that bar can be down to a myriad of reasons, one of which is a poor investigation. It doesn’t mean that the earlier bars weren’t reached. Sometimes, a prosecutor will realise it is going down the Pan early, and withdraw the matter. Other times, they will for some reason blindly continue with the prosecution and everyone looks daft at court. 

So it depends. Knowing that someone has done something is one thing. Proving it to the standards of the law of the land is another. In a few cases, the prosecution is just technically wrong, but more often than not, there was something there, just not enough. The knack is knowing at which point to call it a day, accept you tried your best and hoping it was a sufficient shot across the bows to deter any future shenanigans.