The Archers - It's so much more than just a soap. It's a bloody drama!

[PseudoBadger]

Will it still be Sunday tonight?

Beaufort - I'm not sure I follow your last post. As career has clearly explained (thanks, career), the prosecution is carried out by the CPS, a public body, which appoints its own barristers. Rob is a witness that they will call in evidence. Helen is the one on trial and she chooses a barrister to defend her.

Although I'm wondering, will Helen just crumble, agree to plead guilty, to whatever a lawyer tells her she should plead guilty to. So no trial, and the legal wrangling is then about the sentence - what mitigating factors can be presented at that stage?

Mega cross post!

Indeed, Jessie. By the way, you've converted careeristbitchnigel into an angel.

So, my question still stands: I can see Helen fatalistically saying "yes, I stabbed him, I'm guilty, do your worst" - so no trial, what happens next?

what happens next? things get throw at radios of course.

I have never said the defendant has a say over the prosecutor.

I accept the plaintiff might not have a say either. However, the defendant has a Sa over who defends. If the defendant can appoint the best in the land and the plaintiff has to have whomsoever the crown decides the defendant might have the better quality counsel.

It isn't that hard to work out. Is the state regularly appointing QCs with many years experience? Can we have some facts about this. Shall I just ask DH and quote him. He might charge a hefty fee!

I second what careerist says - the victim has absolutely no say in who prosecutes. The prosecution is brought by the Crown, not the victim.

Beaufort, there was a series on, I think, BBC4 recently called "The Prosecutors" - it may still be available on iPlayer. It shows fairly clearly how decisions are taken and how little say victims have in them, and in particular it shows the prosecuting barrister having discussions with the police, not the victims.

Or, in other words - it is the State that prosecutes on behalf of society - it is not a private matter and the prosecutor is not in the employ of the victim's family.

There is no plaintiff in a criminal case.

The plaintiff in a criminal case is the Crown, not the victim.

Beaufort - at 22:38 you wrote: Rob has a say about who prosecutes. That is the statement that several of us are saying is untrue.

There isn't a plaintiff in this case

Perhaps your dh could do some pro bono!

Pseudo You have excelled yourself over here One Line At A Time if anyone fancies a bit of light relief.

Sorry, that was to "Beaufort" not in response to moving with whom I actually agree; should have put "plaintiff" in inverted commas in my own post.

By the way, just FYI, no plaintiffs any more in civil cases in Enhland & Wales - they have been known as "Claimants" for over a decade.

Do you think we've covered this point enough yet?

Perhaps we should resume our discussion about the merits of sending 5-year olds to boarding school.

Cross post there. There are no plaintiffs in criminal cases; there aren't in civil cases either, they're called claimants these days, but for a long time if you sued someone in a civil case (e.g. if you were claiming damages for negligence or breach of contract) you were called a plaintiff.

So Rob isn't the plaintiff in Helen's prosecution. As the victim, it isn't a case of he "might not have a say" in who is appointed as counsel for the crown, he does not have a say.

Generally speaking the CPS appoint counsel according to the seriousness of the case. They certainly do regularly appoint QCs, particularly for homicide cases, and quite often for high profile ones. They may do if they know the defence is appointing one, but again I suppose it depends on the nature of the case.

Recycling I saw that Maxine peake thing. I bawled my eyes out. I may be getting it confused with another similar on too though. Was that the one where the child gave harrowing evidence using the dolls about her mother being sexual assaulted. And it emerged she had stabbed him whilst he was in the process of raping her? (Far more justifiable self defence and yet she still did time)

I imagine there will be some of baby in jail in store for TA as unless Augusta's marvellously envisioned EE criminal justice system comes into play surely she will do some time or at least be threatened with it.

Is the state regularly appointing QCs with many years experience?

In the most serious cases, yes. Two of "my" cases were prosecuted by silks

small I think the daughter was a teenager and stuck up for her Dad right up until she broke down in the witness box and realised what he'd been doing.

Maxine had taken the knife to bed with the intention of killing herself then decided to kill him instead.

The opening scene also involved him demanding custard I'm sure . He would mark the shampoo bottle to see how much she was using and monitor her mileage. He was a barrister and she was his mentally fragile, depressed wife who had to be protected from herself.

I watched it whilst breastfeeding a 2 month old DS. Her baby was taken away from her at birth as there was no room in a mother and baby unit. DH practically had to get me a paper bag I cried so much. I was not allowed to choose the TV for sometime after!

The state is perhaps not as cost cutting as some would have us believe then.. It is a fact though that Helen as the defendant has more choice over who represents her case than does Rob.

Apologies over terminology but as H has money behind her she may have the upper hand.

Augusta wrote:

"Of course, it's always possible for a jury to decide to ignore the law and to acquit if they have enough sympathy for the accused. It might just be that that is the line the SWs will take: all the various people in the village will line up to say what a crooked bastard Rob is, Rob will have a meltdown in the witness box, Helen will burst into tears, her lawyer will make an impassioned speech and the jury will acquit her without bothering to retire. At least, that's how it would happen in EE, so it must be a entirely probably scenario, mustn't it?"

This is what I think will happen. Even in RL, aren't there occasionally 'perverse' verdicts? (i.e. with the implication that a jury has made a decision that seems to be at odds with the 'facts of the case') Or have I imagined that?

recycling again. Far better done that this tosh

I wonder how long it will be before Heken realises if she doesn't do something about her defence, she won't be allowed to see Henwee. So D3 I don't think she'll be pleading guilty with no fight.

But again, who said it will go to a jury? As I said, I can see Helen just wanting to get the birth behind her, plead guilty and take the consequences. Then the focus is purely on appropriate sentencing, which is down to a judge.

Fair point about Henry, although if it goes to trial is she really going to expect to see more of him?

I don't think she'll want to plead guilty and just take the consequences. She wasn't even expecting to be arrested on Sunday. She seemed relieved to see Harrison and puzzled when she was taken away. She didn't even realise at that moment that she'd done anything wrong.