Plastic surgeon - attempted murder trial.

[JamesWebbSpaceTelescope]

Can someone who knows more about how the court works help me with this one?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly12gxxd1qo

He was defending himself but also not present as he was on hunger strike - so was no defence presented then? The jury took 12hours to deliberate so they must have had something to discuss.

I think a defendant should be forced to attend court for a trial, or for sentencing. They might heed to be handcuffed and dragged into court, but they should be there

so was no defence presented then?

No defence case was presented, but the court brought in a barrister to cross examine the prosecution witnesses. The jury were instructed not to take the defendant's absence as proof of guilt. I expect the judge also warned them to be especially careful given that no defence had been presented.

That must have been a very strange case then. And also very odd for the court appointed barrister to do the cross examination but not an actual defence.

@OldJohn i think the article says he is being ordered by the judge to be present for sentencing (but that might be virtual). It is very hard to force someone to do something. If they just go limp and lie down and you going to carry them in? What if they insist on singing loudly at the top of their voices during the whole thing - gag them?

And also very odd for the court appointed barrister to do the cross examination but not an actual defence

To mount a defence, you need to know how the defendant wants to defend the case. Do they want to deny it was them, or mount some other defence? Since the defendant was refusing to engage, it would have been impossible for the barrister to mount a proper defence. They could, however, cross examine prosecution witnesses and try to show any holes or inconsistencies in the evidence.

I’m assuming they wanted a defence as they pled not guilty and asked for a postponement to get a defence ready themselves (though it sounds like the court thought that was a delaying tactic as it wasn’t granted). Must have been very strange for everyone involved and hard for the jury to not take it into account.

The first thing is the judge will tell the jury that they have to start from a point where the defendent is innocent and work their way through the evidence.

There may have been a lesser charge option of GBH? But even if not imo in a crosssection of the community with a wide range of jury members there will be some who will not wish to make a decision without going through the evidence to double check that the State has proved its case. That itself would take time as its summrising days of evidence and jury members will not remember everything in the same way.

Even with a defence there was never going to be a suprise disclosure by a witness that they were lying or had gotten something wrong. So that and other evidence would be detailed and presented in order to the jury.

With a live witness the "who did," it would be a "he said" anyway so unless a defendent could produce a reason for such a big lie the jury would weigh the eyewitness's words between being more likely than not and beyond reasonable doubt. The defence case would be just asking the stabbing victim if he was sure it was the person he recognised. To unless he said he never saw who stabbed him the who and when are proven.

Next bit is the intent to kill.
Intent is a mental state of mind by the individual doing the stabbing.
Was it a breaking in with a knife a robbery gone wrong type thing or a threat gone wrong by the defendent etc not a plot to murder? So the jury have to convince themselves that a "nice professional doctor" decided it was a good idea to kill someome to solve a work problem. Lots of people believe they could never murder someone so would find it difficult to believe that someone actually decided that killing was a "good" option or seen it as a "logical" solution to the work issue. And there could be some debate about exactly how the stabbing happened (was it "accidental" while trying to leave) as without that intent to kill there is no guilty vote for attemped murder.

When someone pleads not guilty, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the person is guilty beyond reasonable doubt- not on the accused person to prove they are innocent.

To ensure justice has been done, the jury here has been enabled by the court to consider reasonable alternatives and whether every element of the offence was made out, even in the absence of the defendant.

Not guilty pleas means the State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the legaly innocent individual did what s/he was charged with.

The defence would have been prepared by him with the legal team before the case was listed. And all the evidence which would be used in the trial would have been available to him to discuss all the options available. And it was the second time it was in the courts so 4 weeks was not going to do much after a 2+ year delay which was plenty of prep time.

I suspect a long term "hunger strike" could have medical implications about his ability to participate in his defence / the trial as a whole and would only result in a further delay if the 4 weeks were granted

He or his ex-legal team could have argued against some of the evidence being shown to the jury etc but the State organising a cross examination tested the witness on how sure/positive they were about the statememts they made at the time of the investigation.

And i amend my statement 😁

Even with a defence there was never going to be it is highly unlikely there is a suprise disclosure by a witness that they were lying or had gotten something wrong. So that and other evidence would be detailed and presented in order to the jury.

so him choosing to be a no-show would not be a legal reason to stop the trial nor i think create a reason to appeal