So it's alleged nigella took drugs with her kids?

[Bradsplit]

In the trial prosecution evidence. Aha.

the very fact that the judge himself has said it was inappropriate for the pm to comment, feeds the suspicion that yes, in fact, it is Nigella who is de facto on trial.

I expect to see a lot of mud slinging over the next few days, regardless of whether it has any actual bearing on their defence.

Yes, I think that was very unwise of the judge. He should jave just ignored it or pointed out that it is irrelevant as NL is not on trial.

Perhaps it is relevant as the judge allowed 'bad faith testimony' re Nigella to be heard in this case, so I can be argued he must also hear "good faith" evidence about her ie the PM loves her?

This trial just gets more and more absurd.

Having caught up on the thread, it is very much a continuation of what math said earlier. This evening, headlines and tweets of "Nigella lied about drug use!" are being bandied about. Never mind the fact that the Grillo sister currently on the stand also was forced to admit that she had never actually seen her take drugs. Or the fact it is the Grillos on trial. That doesn't generate such good headlines

TBH if she were on trial, David Cameron as a character witness would really fuck her defence.

It might inspire her to do a Spam in Cola recipe, though.

She didn't lose her husband though, she divorced him...

small but important distinction, I think.

It's laughable for the judge to complain about people commenting after he opened the whole can of worms up for public consumption.

But it appears the judge has also got a bit confused about who it is that is on trial here, and for what.

Well, let's hope that it doesn't degenerate into a mistrial.

mathanxiety - agreed. And the other ridiculous thing is that by telling the jury to ignore it, he's drawing their attention to something they might not even have noticed. It's like saying, "For god's sake, don't look out of the window!"

Nigella would not want a mistrial. Shouldnt think that anyone would except for it being a further payday for lawyers.

I really think that the judge needs to start imposing reporting restrictions on this. The whole thing stinks of extortion to me - the cocaine allegations were clearly meant as a threat to get the Saatchi's to withdraw the complaint, and now they are going for maximum damage to Nigella's reputation.

How on earth is the judge allowing this?

There are strict rules for when you can impose reporting restrictions, I doubt that 'famous witness is being discussed in the media again' would qualify.

I think the judge has got it right-point out that you should ignore the PM then leave it. Nigella is only a witness, but her credibility is important (if she's telling the truth the Grillos must lose, if she's lying the Grillos defence has to be considered by the jury).

I think what happened was the defendants' lawyers applied without the jury present to have something done about this, perhaps even the trial started again because of the DC incident so the judge cannot then ignore that. The lawyers then spent all morning arguing about it and presumably the defendants' application for mistrial was refused and the case carried on.

Exactly mathanxiety - right at the start I thought the judge was being off to say no reporting restrictions. So I'm wary of anything he might say now.

Basically I'm saying there seems to be something very unfair about this trial. The judge was unfair at the start to allow NIgella to be paraded around as if she were on trial. If the public want to come to her defence so be it The judge has lost credibility, and the PM Is not daft and probably knew full well what he was implying with the Team NIgella comment.

How was the judge to stop Nigella being 'paraded', exactly? You just can't keep witnesses anonymous very easily. Trials have to happen in public and the exceptions to that are few.

What the public thinks about her is not an important issue in his trial, all that matters is that the jury is not unduly influenced to believe or disbelieve her by media coverage.

The only person who has hung her out to dry is her ex-husband, but most people see through that.

I presume Nigella didnt use a back door to the court, so wanted the media circus?

I notice that NIgella is on the front of the papers yet again this morning!! In an unfavourable light - that she lied about drug taking. Who said that in court I don't know. This whole court case and the reporting of it just stinks - and the public know it - and the PM too probably ..

The fact is, she is a witness in a criminal case - not the defendant.

Through the defence, we are now being treated to intimate details of her home life - the state of her marriage (although in fairness, those photos sort of told it all), the contents of her bedside cabinet, a raft of petty grievances by a disgruntled former employee, such as being asked to return to work to tidy up.

I think there is a much bigger issue at play here, about how in many cases, famous or not, witnesses are themselves made to feel as if they are the ones on trial - this is particularly so in sexual offences.

The court has the power to impose reporting restrictions. From Crown Court Guidance on reporting restrictions:

'Section 58 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 gives courts the power to postpone reports of derogatory assertions about named or identified persons that have been made in mitigation. The court must have substantial grounds for believing that the assertion is derogatory and false or that the facts asserted are irrelevant to the sentence.'

Not sure that applies here though.

One of the defendants is giving evidence at the moment and said Nigella was a liar in her evidence yesterday. Hence the headlines today.

I have taken the liberty of starting a new thread, as this one is full.

new thread

Goldigger, where is the back door to the court that witnesses are allowed to use and that the media don't know about?