What's the point of pleading not guilty against clear evidence.

[Angrya]

Hoping someone can help me understand.

A crime was commited in public in daylight, in front of witnesses and clear CCTV. Upon arrest the suspect told police officers "Yes I did it". They have now pleaded not guilty. What's the point?

I'm not trying to be stupid, just genuinely understand. Our family now needs to be dragged through a multi day trial when all the evidence is blatantly obvious.

Our family now needs to be dragged through a multi day trial

You answered it yourself

@Letsseeshallwe I'm sorry I don't understand, do you mean just to put our family through it?

Spite or the vague hope of getting off on a technicality I guess.

Could it be so you can’t take a civil suit out against them?

Is the accused hoping that their solicitor/barrister can cast enough doubt on the evidence/procedures to get them off on a technicality?

Because they can, I guess. They're likely to be convicted either way so why not make it as difficult as possible?

Yes, thats ususally why they plead not guilty in the face of overwhelming evidence.

It's common in rape cases, and the victim has to relive the ordeal again, through the courts.

Absolutely disgusting.

Thank you for the responses.

There has to be a unanimous or majority verdict from a jury that the defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Defence barristers are experts at adducing reasonable doubt.
In an assault caught on CCTV they'd go for self defence. It may be that the victim had been violent to the defendant early, off screen, so the fear of the defendant of the victim may exonerate them.
Any evidence given against the victim and for the defendant is another layer of reasonable doubt.
They may evidence their mental health or state of mind at the time for a lesser conviction such as manslaughter instead of murder.
I recently attended a long trial as part of my job role where one of the defendents plead guilty to one of the murders.
Our prosecution barrister said that this was so rare, he had only seen it happen twice before in the whole of his long career.
Interesting thread.

It could be spite as others suggest.

It could be that they hope those involved will have had enough and won't give evidence, or that the prosecution will fail to turn up (which, unfortunately, happens sometimes), or that something else will happen to undermine the prosecution case.

It could be that they hope to get off on a technicality.

Sometimes in this situation, the offender will enter a plea of not guilty but will change it to guilty as soon as the trial starts and they can see that everyone has turned up. They have rolled the dice and it hasn't worked. They will lose some of the reduction in sentence they would have got for pleading guilty at the first opportunity, but they will still get some reduction.

They could be hoping that the witnesses/victims pull out due to stress . If this is the case they will probably change their plea again on the day.
Or they are going for a defence of not mentally well enough to be held responsible for actions.
Either way its shitty behaviour and will be noted by the judge at sentencing.

I saw the aftermath of an incident where a guy drove into the tail lift of a van. The guy unloading was knocked off and his head hit the pavement. He was lucky the fridge freezer didn't drop on top of him.

The tailift wedged in the car bonnet. It was a clear main road.

I heard him say on the phone to someone he had just driven into a van.

He had a second phone next to him on the seat.

It was bloody obvious he did it - it went to court as he pleaded not guilty. The owner of the shop would not testify as she was worried about retribution. For whatever reason the police who had taken statement didn't show.

He got off!

Maybe making assumptions but I suspect he was quite familiar with the process and chances that would happen....

There was the trial of Bristol rap artist, Solo 45 who had secret cameras in his home. He'd filmed himself raping multiple women,
So the evidence was there. He went to trial for his own gratification. Very
Distressing for the victims.

www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/solo-45-rape-court-case-4381410

I am very sorry for all on this thread going through the legal mincer.
I wish you justice.

Was this as the first hearing? The very first? Their solicitor may have told them to plead not guilty as there is something wrong with the evidence. You’ll find that they will probably change their plea at the next hearing or before trial, unless the solicitor actually does have a plan or knows something about the evidence.

I heard recently on the radio that cases can take so long to get to court that they don't hold up by then, as in prosecution witnesses may not want to/be able to testify. It was said that some solicitors are now pushing the not guilty plea to utilise this and get clients off.
Whilst I strongly believe in right to a fair trial and a robust defender of the accused, when I've been in court as an observer it did come over as much more of a 'game' than I'd expected tbh. Barristers can be excellent at tripping people up and so at least they are muddying waters of what can seem like irrefutable evidence.
So sorry you have to wait and then attend this.

I was a juror on what appeared to be an open and shut case when the prosecutor laid out the case. It was a domestic abuse case, there were photographs of the injuries, the police had attended, there was an independent third party witness.

But when the victim got on the stand she contradicted everything she had said in the initial statement to the police - she had told them it all happened in the evening, she told us in court it was in the morning. She claimed she had made a 999 call, police had no record of a call and never attended the address. The independent witness backed her up on some points and contradicted others which and also contradicted points in the original statement.

What appeared to be a done deal initially ended up in such a mess that the case was thrown out of court.

I imagine it's often a "it's not over til it's over" mentality, as per pps, there are various things that can happen to prevent a guilty verdict at trial.

These are criminals we are talking about, they didn't care about the victim when they committed the crime so there's no reason to think they care about them now.

Also, some people just like maximum drama. Others think they are always right. It's could be a wide variety of reasons op. I'm really sorry you are in this position ☹️ Hopefully justice will feel a bit sweeter when guilt truly is proven beyond reasonable doubt. x

It's a waste of time, and money and incredibly upsetting for the victim and their family.
I can only imagine there's a technicality their lawyer is planning on using to minimise it. But if found guilty they'll get a worse sentence for lying and forcing trial.

It may be that although they carried out the action, they have a potential defence. For example, they hit someone but have been advised that they may be able to argue self defense. Or they are hoping witnesses don’t turn up (in which case they may plead on the morning of the trial).

The victim is a four year old child. There is no fucking defense. I understand she's not a reliable witness due to age but the other witnesses and CCTV is so fucking clear. I'm heartbroken

Very sorry to hear this. At least if found guilty after trial he will lose the the third off the sentence, which is intended to encourage people to plead guilty when they know they are.
Make sure you (or relevant person) write a detailed victim impact statement about the effect of the crime on the victim and family.

I agree with this, however I would also add that judges/judgements and sentencing can seem completely random (I know supposedly not) and sentencing has got guidelines at least - but even then once incarcerated sentences are often much reduced and early release due to overcrowding etc rather than for good behaviour etc.

If I was in that situation of being arrested I'd take the gamble to be honest.
Extremely shit for the victims because going to court can often be much worse for them than the accused and as traumatic as the crime committed against them.

I'm astonished and I so admire anyone as a victim who has the courage to go to court and seek justice, the whole system seems to be designed to torture.

People's Capacity for self delusion is endless. Flat earthers aside, I have read so many threads here where the man is convinced they should pay nothing in a divorce, bridezillas, anything Trump says etc. He might be doing it to hope that the case crumbles before court, but it could just be that he believes in his own god like state so much, everyone must believe him. So sorry you are going through this.

If (and,i dont doubt you)evidence nd witness evidence is bulletproof,it may be defendant has opted to plea not guilty at the initial intermediate diet, to buy them more time ...they most likely enter guilty plea on court date. (are they face jailtime?) so hopefully tho nightmare having to ttend the "trial"is avoided.

No idea but I was involved in a situation like this. In my case I was a witness to an attempted murder, once again Broad daylight in a public place, caught red handed. They kept changing the court date as he would refuse to leave his cell. Went on for months although in my case he ended up just pleading guilty. 🤷‍♀️