Advice needed re court case

[Doinmummy]

Are there any barristers or criminal lawyers out there who wouldn't mind me PMing them with regard to a court case in which I am a witness please ?

Sorry, typo.

Or, depending on the time of the verdict, the next day

Agree with what Beckymcdonald says. I am not sure on the procedure in crown but hopefully pre-sentencing reports would have already been ordered which should enable swift sentencing.

She also reiterated my point, that even if the jury believe you there may not be enough to satisfy the criminal burden of proof.
To illustrate, although this was magistrates instead of crown, I am about to link th detailed verdict in the Neil Fox case. It shows clearly that although the magistrates believed the witnesses there was not enough for them to actually convict.
www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Neil-Fox-verdict.pdf

So whilst I really hope the right verdict is given, please don't feel you were not believed if it doesn't go your way.

I assume you are finished now and I do know how you must not discuss it so am not asking you too. I am glad you got through the evidence giving relatively unscathed, I must admit my time in the witnes box in Crown many years ago has stuck with me as very unpleasant (and I was not the victim).

Good luck to you. Let us know the verdict.

If the jury believe us, why would they not find a guilty verdict ?

I have read the transcript of the NF case Just I feel sick at the thought of a not guilty verdict for us.

I am sorry if it upset you and I do genuinely hope you get the verdict you deserve.

Believing a witness isn't always enough sadly, if it's a he says she says type of thing then there could be some doubt. To convict it has to be 'so that you are sure' (which is the new terminology for 'beyond reasonable doubt'). I know certainly there have been times in trials where my gut tells me the defendent is guilty but the evidence is not strong enough to actually convict.
I am not saying that will happen at all in your case and I hope it doesn't but believing someone to be guilty and legally proving it aren't the same thing. Which is what the NF transcript shows. I read it and felt awfully sorry for the 'alleged victims' (being careful for legal purposes here so the thread doesn't get pulled).

I am assuming there are other witnesses in your case if it is going on next week and I hope they will all add weight together.

Fingers crossed for you. I assume you are waiting for witness care to tell you the verdict when it comes rather than watching the trial?

Of course the other thing is that while magistrates have to explain their reasoning that lead to the verdict, juries do not. It will be a simple guilty or not guilty. Hopefully the former.

Sorry , can you clarity that last bit please? If our jury find him guilty then he is guilty, is that it ? Does the judge direct them as to the verdict ? Can the jury say guilty and then the judge say bit guilty ?

Sorry for all the questions and I'm very grateful for your help.

What about the RH case ? I wonder what evidence there was for him to be found guilty ?

*not guilty

Yes the judge can direct them to find guilty or not guilty but I think this is fairly rare. That would be as part of his/her summing up. (So the way it works is prosecution witnesses first, then defence witnesses, then prosecution barrister sums up (summarises) their argument, then the defence barrister does then finally the judge sums up. The judge's summing up should be more balanced and will provide a good guide for the jury as to what he/she thinks is the most important evidence, what is strong, what is less consistent etc. At the end of the judge's summing up he could direct the jury to go one way or the other but usually does not.

Once the jury come back with the guilty/not guilty the judge cannot overrule it. The only possible way to change that would be for the defendent to appeal the conviction. There can't do this just because they fancy it, there would need to be new evidence or a miscarriage of justice, ie the system was wrong.

Unfortunately we don't know the details of why the jury decided in the RH case as juries don't have to explain their verdicts.

No, a judge can never direct a jury to find someone guilty, nor is the decision left to summing up.

Half way through a case, after the prosecution case is closed, the defence barrister can make a submission that there is no case to answer, i.e. that the evidence the prosecution has brought doesn't meet the relevant standards of proof. Occasionally they might make that submission even earlier if the prosecution case is extremely weak. If the judge agrees, s/he would then direct the jury to acquit.

There have been numerous cases where, in his or her summing up, the judge has leant very heavily one way but the jury has gone the other way. There have in fact been cases where juries have deliberately acquitted to show their disapproval of the relevant law or because, for instance, they didn't like the mandatory death sentence.

Thankyou for all this information, it is really helpful. The NF case has wobbled me , although that was heard in a Mag court, we are in Crown Court. I don't get how it could have gone to trial, everyone believes the witnesses but he was found not guilty. I thought the CPS went through all the evidence to ensure it was strong enough to go to trial.

Augusta obviously knows more about the Crown court than I do so apologies if I misled there re judges directions. I am obviously in magistrates.

CPS go through and prepare the evidence and I understand that they go forward with cases they think stand more than 50% chance of conviction. ( I think I got that from a documentary last year in the CPS). The issue is that juries are 12 ordinary people not legal experts.
Augusta may know more re CPS procedures?

I hope that as we are crown court and have a jury that the jury believes us and finds guilty .

Tomorrow is D Day - the judge will decide if our evidence is strong enough to continue. It's so frustrating that we've come this far and it could all fall through . I don't know why they let it go this far and only at this stage decide if there's enough evidence to carry on with the case.

Good luck.

We lost

Oh no. I am so sorry to hear that

Oh no :(

I am facing similar in a few months, so I really feel for you and empathise

I believe you

Thankyou , I'm devastated

oh Doinmummy - no help, but a hug x

It took two years to get this to court after keeping it a secret for 40 and now nothing .

So have I got this right - the prosecution presented their evidence then the judge decided not enough evidence to carry on? So no defence presented, no jury decision? Why when CPS thought there was enough evidence to proceed? (so that must mean they thought at least a 51% chance of a guilty verdict)

Crap

I can't even contemplate a not guilty at the trial (it will have taken nearly 2 years by the time we get to court too) I hadn't realised that it could all be stopped before it gets to the jury. :(
I empathise with your devastation.

I'll say again, I believe you and I also understand the courage it took to do what you did, be proud of that. xx

You are correct and it happens .i think, in all historic cases like this. I wish we hadn't bothered .

We gave our evidence and were cross examined by the defence . The accused didn't take the stand.

And we've been told that we cannot appeal