display name Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 The pair of them will end up married but the wedding vows will be a chore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 Women with doctorates must be his thing. He tags MHK Dr Michelle Haywood several times a day, almost every day of the week. Link to Twitter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheldon Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 11 hours ago, Gladys said: He is representing himself. @Kopek it is exactly now that the sub judice rules bite. They are meant to ensure juries are not swayed by public comments. (Mind you, Tynwald has a different spin on sub judice). It's in Summary Court, I don't think they actually have juries? Although it could still be committed to a higher court at some point. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 4 hours ago, Sheldon said: It's in Summary Court, I don't think they actually have juries? Although it could still be committed to a higher court at some point. They don't have juries but they may involved magistrates, who as judicial laypeople as still seen as being potential influenced by media coverage. So there is still a presumption that the stricter levels of sub judice apply. It's all a bit vague and probably left that way deliberately. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weliveinhope Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 8 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said: They don't have juries but they may involved magistrates, who as judicial laypeople as still seen as being potential influenced by media coverage. So there is still a presumption that the stricter levels of sub judice apply. It's all a bit vague and probably left that way deliberately. just like the law then 😁 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 51 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said: They don't have juries but they may involved magistrates, who as judicial laypeople as still seen as being potential influenced by media coverage. So there is still a presumption that the stricter levels of sub judice apply. It's all a bit vague and probably left that way deliberately. It’s one of our Stipendary Magistrates. The High Bailiff. No lay magistrates involved. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thommo2010 Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said: They don't have juries but they may involved magistrates, who as judicial laypeople as still seen as being potential influenced by media coverage. So there is still a presumption that the stricter levels of sub judice apply. It's all a bit vague and probably left that way deliberately. Come on in this day and age with Google it's easy to check someone's name do you really think jurors don't have a look at who they are judging? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 20 minutes ago, John Wright said: It’s one of our Stipendary Magistrates. The High Bailiff. No lay magistrates involved. I thought that might be the case (hence my 'may'), given the length of the trial, though it wasn't even clear from the reporting if it was Summary or General Gaol. But I was trying to explain the principles behind the idea of sub judice and how they apply a bit differently in different sorts of trials. 15 minutes ago, thommo2010 said: Come on in this day and age with Google it's easy to check someone's name do you really think jurors don't have a look at who they are judging? It may be easy, but it's also illegal and in the UK can lead to jurors being fined or imprisoned up to two years. Jurors will be warned at the beginning of each trial what might constitute contempt of court (such as looking stuff up on the internet) and the consequences of committing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thommo2010 Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 4 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said: I thought that might be the case (hence my 'may'), given the length of the trial, though it wasn't even clear from the reporting if it was Summary or General Gaol. But I was trying to explain the principles behind the idea of sub judice and how they apply a bit differently in different sorts of trials. It may be easy, but it's also illegal and in the UK can lead to jurors being fined or imprisoned up to two years. Jurors will be warned at the beginning of each trial what might constitute contempt of court (such as looking stuff up on the internet) and the consequences of committing it. Unless you're stupid enough to do it in front of the courts or other people then how will you get caught? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finlo Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 2 minutes ago, thommo2010 said: Unless you're stupid enough to do it in front of the courts or other people then how will you get caught? You think they're internet usage wouldn't be monitored? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 12 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said: it wasn't even clear from the reporting It mentioned the HB by name, which is a giveaway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thommo2010 Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 Guilty. https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/anti-vaccine-campaigner-found-guilty-of-stalking-leading-isle-of-man-scientist-660906?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0-Ed6VsBk8B2N0c5nFoYFVKGYsYh5RjEdGXZQFapHoowqQMU1Shcj5BfA#Echobox=1705426883 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 4 minutes ago, finlo said: You think they're internet usage wouldn't be monitored? It isn’t. Its done on trust. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thommo2010 Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 4 minutes ago, finlo said: You think they're internet usage wouldn't be monitored? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheldon Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 17 minutes ago, thommo2010 said: Guilty. https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/anti-vaccine-campaigner-found-guilty-of-stalking-leading-isle-of-man-scientist-660906?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0-Ed6VsBk8B2N0c5nFoYFVKGYsYh5RjEdGXZQFapHoowqQMU1Shcj5BfA#Echobox=1705426883 "Heading, 66, of Richmond Road, Ramsey, said he was not fixated or obsessive, and added that he has contacted hundreds of people, with 3 to 5% of his output mentioning Dr Glover." That's not really the killer defence he thinks it is. What's the likely/maximum sentence here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.