Yep, I joke about the Judge Dredd system, but even that is better than what I know about North Korea, aspects of China and Russia, Burma and Laos, Syria, and more than one place in South America.
You can have the opinion that it is not ‘cut and dried’ but I think your opinion would have to be at least partly uniformed if you have not heard all the evidence and seen the testimony of the victim.
The difference is we are not stating that evidence was inadequate without seeing it. We’re trusting that the jury did its job, because that’s how our legal system works.
Just wondering whether there have been any historical clerical abuse convictions overturned on ground of unreasonableness of the jury verdict.
Is there a common standard of unreasonableness or a distinct standard for such cases? Could dismissal at the committal stage be relevant?
Frank Brennan now justifying his earlier commentary on the grounds of bringing a legal perspective to balance journalist commentary on evidence. I take that to be a swipe at Lucie Morris Marr, who voiced some views in the New Daily. She sat through the whole trial and, while I might have reservations about her reporting style she should not stand condemned for not being a lawyer.
How does Brennan feel about jurors without legal expertise?