Russell Brand 🤢🤮 in the Docky Wock

[U53rName]

Credit to @thebrowncatisback for the title. Original thread is here: www.mumsnet.com/talk/in_the_news/5589048-russell-brand?callback=in&code=YTEWYJJJMZQTMJFHNS0ZNDI5LTK3N2QTZWJHYWNHZJGXNZA2&page=39&state=aa7521b41da5458084d85ced7c73c27d

Yes thanks 👍🏻

For this reason (and others), on balance, I am not in favour of the jury system. Having sat on a jury and seen the thought processes of some jurors - or rather lack of them (and ours contained a majority of thoughtful and obviously intelligent people) I think the stakes are far too high to have juries decide on guilt in the case of serious criminal charges.

Judgement by one’s peers is just a phrase: it isn’t automatically a good thing and it’s certainly not a prerequisite for a civilised society.

@m00ngirl

When deciding whether the prosecution can force a witness to testify, a court typically asks:

• Is the person competent to give evidence (i.e. legally capable of being a witness);
• Is the person compellable under the relevant statute or common-law rule? And
• Is a witness summons necessary and in the interests of justice?

The prosecution may have decided not to call them as on balance the third limb of the test wasn’t met. Or maybe they weren’t actually compellable in the first place.

I agree that it's not automatically a good thing as it doesn't always lead to the proper outcome.

The way I see it though is that the whole point of trying people for crimes is because they've allegedly done things that are against the social norms in the society in which they live so it's only right that people who also live in that society can pass judgement on them.
Randomly selecting them is the best way to do this.

In this (literal) case, if those 12 people decide he's not guilty then that's it.
Got to go with it.

I realise that I may have phrased this in a simplistic way but I hope I'm clear as to what I mean.

ETA Is judgement by one's peers just a phrase or is it a fundamental principle of the judicial system?

It's more damning that the defence didn't call them.....

From Sky News:
Ian Winter KC tells the jury that Brand had consensual sexual encounters with "many, many women", asking jurors to "put out of your mind any distaste you may feel for the way he lived his life... That way of living is not criminal."

Technically sexual activity in a toilet open to the public or part of the public after May 2004 is criminal. According to his PA, he was having sex in toilets after this date. That way of living is criminal.

New thread?

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/in_the_news/5595579-russell-brand-crunch-time

@TotaleclipseinFranceThe principle of being judged by one's peers through a jury of ordinary citizens is a longstanding and highly valued feature of the criminal justice system in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. It is often cited as a safeguard against state power and as a means of bringing community standards into the administration of justice. But it’s not a fundamental constitutional requirement for every criminal case. Most criminal cases in the UK are not decided by juries: the vast majority are heard in the Magistrates’ Ct before magistrates (lay justices) or a District Judge, who decide both facts and law.

Only the more serious offences are tried in Crown Court before a judge and jury.

Magistrates also just usually just deal with things that are clear cut, though, don't they?
Like drink driving offences.

I know a few. They're deemed to be upstanding members of society but I don't think they have any specialist knowledge, aren't they just advised on the appropriate sentence?

Why is her dad there? Isn’t it a bad look to show how desperate they are? That money talks. Look at us, we are above you all. Well they clearly are not.

I’m not sure about that, to a certain generation he could be influential. Or maybe he’s there to tell the jury, don’t worry about my daughter and grandkids, I’ll make sure they’re looked after.

Just because they’re not serious offences doesn’t mean it’s “clear cut”.

The average IQ in the UK is 102, which I wouldn’t personally be up against if I were involved in a trial. But what other options do we have?

I suppose that originally the jury would have been very likely to contain people who knew the accused, at least by local reputation; towns were smaller then, and people didn't travel from their birthplace so much. How recently did anyone who knew the person on trial stop being allowed on the jury?

Jurors are supposed to draw on their life experience when deciding the facts and then to apply the direction of the judge in relation to the charges on the indictment.

Alternatives to jury trial are not a panacea for the issues around trial by 12 of your peers. I've been on a jury and couldn't tell you what some of the people on that jury actually thought about any of it. We held secret ballots at various points and eventually took direction to be able to give majority verdicts.

Myself and another juror in the pool were on two cases together. She didn’t utter a word regarding either.

What’s everyone’s predictions for each charge ?

Just a reminder before this one closes that there is another thread. https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/in_the_news/5595579-russell-brand-crunch-time?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=app_share

Thank you for the new thread 🙏🏼

Yes thanks. See it wasn't that difficult lol

Defence was crap (“it was only three rapes and thousands of others haven’t reported him raping them yet, well to the police anyway, you must ignore the dispatches ones”) so feeling quite hopeful about the verdict despite everything…

I stumbled on this video earlier

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dRJyNzakeHg&pp=ygUdUnVzc2VsbCBicmFuZCBpcnJpdGF0aW5nIHdpZmU%3D

this guy commentates on the Brands’ insufferable Sunday services. Just cracked me up, and felt sort of like a relief to hear someone else seeing the same shit I’ve been seeing.

also this is a fascinating one

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o2phdZWNLvo

in which Russell brand describes how he stormed off from his tiny children because they weren’t praying properly (?!) and we learn Laura had to “deal with it”, and also Laura homeschools them….

Cult. Cult. Cult!

@easteggthere’s a new thread now, on which I for one could use your expertise if you have time (and also the other crime experts on this thread I’ve missed - sorry!)

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/inthenews/5595579-russell-brand-crunch-time?utmcampaign=thread&utmmedium=appshare

Thanks @Piglet89 . Yes I’ve been keeping an eye on the thread and have been catching up with the last few court days. Your interest in my views is much appreciated! Although funnily enough there have been a few questions asked which I haven’t bothered answering because you have already done it and said what I would have said!

One thing I struggle with is the good character direction. It does jar somewhat with admitted behaviour, and that kind of disconnect with reality is exactly what the developments in the approach to character over the last 20 years or so (whereby it’s become harder to get a full good character direction even if you have no convictions where there is other bad behaviour) have been designed to prevent. But heigh-ho, I suppose the jury will make of his character what they will, as it’s a very soft ‘only take this into account if you feel it helps you’ type of direction.

My main podcast has been the Sky news one, but I have also been going through the Fame Under Fire one and have just finished going through the prosecution case on that. Interesting to hear it all again. One thing I missed first time around was just how much detail was put to complainant 5 in cross examination by Winter, ie what RB says he said to her about wanting anal and seeking her consent. Not sure whether he substantiated all that in his own evidence? Certainly very interesting that none of it was mentioned in police interviews.

@easteregg I’ve become obsessed and have listened to all the podcasts available. They all give little snippets of more info. Interesting listening to the Times one as it’s one of the journalist who wrote the 2023 piece. She’s extremely professional which is quite amusing. I’d love to know what she really thinks about Ian Winter’s defence!