Russell Brand 🤢🤮 - crunch time

[KidsDoBetter]

Continuing the docky wock

don’t want to jinx it by referring to potentially Jaily Wail

I think it’ll be quite quick for a verdict. There’s not that much evidence

Oh that’s interesting. So he won’t be not guilty by default if they can’t agree? What if half think he’s guilty and half don’t - would that mean a retrial?

I'm not sure how many men would like the implication that not getting much action drives them to rape and men who have lots of sex don't need to. I think they know that sexually deviant men like to satisfy their sexual deviancy in lots of ways. After all, men tend to be more realistic about men than many women are.

I think it will be more the fact that jury members could well have had sketchy drug/drink fueled incidents at parties in their past which will make them think consent is a bit of a complicated area, especially after all this time has elapsed.

I think Friday too, maybe later though. They’ve had Tuesday and this week, I don’t think there is loads to get through.

They may accept a majority verdict (11–1 or 10–2) if they can get that much consensus. Otherwise, yes, he goes free for now, although not with a 'not guilty' verdict (or, obviously, a 'guilty' one). The CPS can apply for a retrial with a new jury, and I think the judge decides yes or no.
TBH I think this case is so high-profile, they'd be unlikely to get a second jury without knowledge/strong opinions on what's gone on so far.

Re your last point - does that mean a second trial is unlikely as they won’t be able to find a neutral jury?

The girls are 8 & 10 so the eldest especially will be picking up on a lot. I know. They are the innocent party in all this mess being handed the biggest punisment.

I don't know. The judge has to decide if it's in the interests of justice to retry. I can imagine it'd be a difficult tussle between the interests of justice and the likelihood of getting a neutral jury; no one wants a second hung jury, but on the other hand I'd have thought the charges were serious enough that it DOES serve justice for him to be tried again.

Presumably if there is a hung jury and a second trial the women would have to go through it all again. They may say no?

A v minor matter but I am wondering will Great Ormond street make a statement after the trial is concluded about RB being barred from the hospital during his son’s surgery?

That felt off to me. I can’t imagine a parent who had been charged but not convicted of offences not relating to children being “barred” in this way. I can imagine perhaps a conversation with the Brands about his presence at that time bringing a press throng to an inner city cramped street location where the very sickest kids and their parents would be highly disturbed by noise etc etc. But I really can’t see that GOSH would have barred him.

It's a good question; I don't know if, in the scenario where a retrial was agreed, people can be compelled to give evidence again.
If they can't, then yes, presumably the judge/CPS have to think about how much/how good prosecution evidence will be available for a retrial and whether it's worth it.

Although I agree the verdicts won’t be quick, I think we’ll know something earlier than Friday afternoon.

I hope you’re right. Whilst there are 7 charges there isn’t vast amounts of testimony and exhibits to trawl through.

https://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/content/jury-rape-verdicts-myths-reality

This is very interesting. Covers the hung jury / retrial Q (quite rare in SA cases) but also paints a more positive picture than one might imagine than in terms of conviction rates in rape cases.

@LetsTalkAboutKevinNow actually, I did not disparage his mother in my post: you have extrapolated that from what I actually wrote. I know she was a single parent but who knows who else was involved in bringing him up.

Whoever was involved though clearly failed to impart a decent set of values - that’s clear as day. I completely stand by my comment.

Blimey. That’s a good enough reason to lock him up.

It would be up to the CPS to decide whether to go for a retrial, not the judge. When it comes to deciding whether a case should be prosecuted or not, judges have extremely limited powers. They can only intervene if there’s what’s called an abuse of process, or if there is insufficient evidence at the close of the prosecution case. Or they can dismiss a case pre-arraignment but again that would only be due to a lack of evidence. What they can’t do is stop a prosecution in the interests of justice when there’s been a hung jury.

In the Ryan Giggs case there was a retrial but the ex girlfriend refused to give evidence again. She wasn't forced to and the trial collapsed.

I certainly don’t get the sense briefly having watched those dire Sunday service videos that he much enjoys being a father.

Setting aside the whole criminality aspect - a narcissistic, former wildly famous celebrity with a history of substance abuse coming to fatherhood late in years after his own dysfunctional childhood, does seem to struggle somewhat with the reality of it. And that’s with nannies on hand whom they reference in the videos.

Ah, I thought the judge and CPS both decided.

I didn't know that. I can imagine not wanting to go through it all again.

There’s no chance they’d be able to retrial fairly. It’s all been broadcast worldwide.

If there were a retrial could it be a panel of judges instead, if it’s felt it’s not possible to get a sufficiently unbiased jury?

Heh. A secure holding facility for malignant narcissists would be a service to society 😂 Life inside would be like some hellish mashup of Greek tragedy, Shakespearian comedy and Big Brother, but the rest of us could get on with things in relative peace.

No. Doesn’t exist in E&W.