Incriminating oneself

[swill453]

A bloke wrote a blog where he described driving between John O'Groats and Land's End in nine hours and 36 minutes, an average speed of 89mph.

He was prosecuted for dangerous driving.

His defence - "I was exaggerating".

He got off of course. What a ridiculous waste of public money.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-55177486

Scott.

[AF62]

Funny he should be exaggerating after he gave interviews to the press boasting about what he had done after he had deliberately left six months because he didn’t believe he could be prosecuted after that time, and the police uncovered the car in his garden he claimed he used complete with radar jammers, fake police lights, fake number plates, and a (badly fitted) extra fuel tank.

And the explanation for his mobile phone showing him in Scotland, then tracking him all the way to Lands End at a silly speed - I was a passenger in a car driven by some Irishmen who’s names I don’t know.

I think he struck rather lucky with a jury of gullible fools.

[johnhemming]

I think he struck rather lucky with a jury of gullible fools.

Or the jury thought he shouldn't have been prosecuted.

[Lootman]

I think he struck rather lucky with a jury of gullible fools.

Or the jury thought he shouldn't have been prosecuted.

Yes, jury nullification. It happens.

[UncleEbenezer]

I think he struck rather lucky with a jury of gullible fools.

Or a principled jury who simply refused, in the only manner available to them without themselves incurring criminal charges, to participate in the bigger crime of our Jury system.

[AF62]

I think he struck rather lucky with a jury of gullible fools.

Or the jury thought he shouldn't have been prosecuted.

I suppose that is the risk of putting what was effectively a speeding charge before a jury, everyone of whom will have broken the law several times that day getting to the court.

[AF62]

to participate in the bigger crime of our Jury system.

Care to explain your thinking as I have no idea what you are saying!

[UncleEbenezer]

to participate in the bigger crime of our Jury system.

Care to explain your thinking as I have no idea what you are saying!

The mods here won't allow me to cite my blog, where I've addressed that question at greater length than I'd think appropriate here. As a prime and very direct answer I'd refer you to "A crime against humanity" (Jan 24th 2007). Followed by "Twelve Angry Men" (August 2nd 2013).

[Arborbridge]

to participate in the bigger crime of our Jury system.

Care to explain your thinking as I have no idea what you are saying!

The mods here won't allow me to cite my blog, where I've addressed that question at greater length than I'd think appropriate here. As a prime and very direct answer I'd refer you to "A crime against humanity" (Jan 24th 2007). Followed by "Twelve Angry Men" (August 2nd 2013).

I too am baffled by your remark which is a concept I've never ever heard of.

Surely you could give us at least a potted resume of what you mean? If you can't be botherd to do that, why would anyone here be bothered to research what - on the face of it - could be a crackpot theory.

I write as one who has served on two juries and found the process very impressive - though admittedly they were minor cases.

Arb.

[UncleEbenezer]

Care to explain your thinking as I have no idea what you are saying!

The mods here won't allow me to cite my blog, where I've addressed that question at greater length than I'd think appropriate here. As a prime and very direct answer I'd refer you to "A crime against humanity" (Jan 24th 2007). Followed by "Twelve Angry Men" (August 2nd 2013).

I too am baffled by your remark which is a concept I've never ever heard of.

Surely you could give us at least a potted resume of what you mean? If you can't be botherd to do that, why would anyone here be bothered to research what - on the face of it - could be a crackpot theory.

I write as one who has served on two juries and found the process very impressive - though admittedly they were minor cases.

Arb.

[...]
Jury service, like tax, is the state taking from its citizens without the option. Unlike taxes, it doesn’t pay for anything productive: rather you’re being coopted to listen to grossly overpaid actors (aka barristers) performing, without the benefit of a show you would want to see. OK, which barrister convinced you? That’ll be the one working for the biggest crook, who knows how to Play the System. If you ever believed The Liar, you’re likely to be convinced by the biggest liar in court, too.

[...]

[...] So what can one do about it? If you Play the Game and pronounce a verdict based on the show you’ve just seen, you’re letting yourself become complicit in that crime. If you refuse to go when summoned, you commit a criminal offence (though the penalties for it might be less trouble than the service itself). There’s no satisfactory solution.

To cap it all, if you get a real gangster, you and your loved ones might be at significant personal risk if you find against them. And of course they’ll then get any adverse verdict overturned by a higher court without the encumbrance of a jury, on the time-honoured principle of innocent until proven broke.

It seems to me that, so long as the loss of time is bearable, the least bad outcomeis non-cooperation within the law. That means going through the motions, but discounting everything presented to you by those overpaid spin-doctors in court. You have (by law) to give a verdict, and there’s only one verdict in a criminal case:

If the accused didn’t do it, they are Not Guilty.
If the accused did do it, they are still Not Guilty. That’s the lesser of two evils: it’s an injustice, but one that has to be set against complicity in the far bigger crime of the jury system.

Any exceptions to that? Certainly not when trying a private individual: not even someone like Ian Huntley or Fred and Rosemary West. For a public figure whose crimes are on a global scale? Well, if I were on the jury for The Liar himself, it would be a tough call.

[...]

Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or No?

The barrister has years of practice; the average honest witness has little or no defence and comes across as evasive or even dishonest.

How many jurors out there are wracked with guilt for years – even a lifetime – after being suckered into reaching a verdict that, as soon as the courtroom story fades and the real world re-enters their minds, they know or suspect to be profoundly wrong? I can see it in anyone with the kind of borderline-obsessive personality of a typical geek who gives attention to detail. Or those with a strong enough social conscience to let it affect their lives. Indeed, I wonder if you have to be a full-blown sociopath to do jury service without at least some risk of lasting damage to your psychological wellbeing? That second juror should’ve taken his lead from my little rant.

[Lootman]

I think he struck rather lucky with a jury of gullible fools.

Or the jury thought he shouldn't have been prosecuted.

I suppose that is the risk of putting what was effectively a speeding charge before a jury, everyone of whom will have broken the law several times that day getting to the court.

You talk about the risk of putting a traffic ticket to a jury trial, but would it have been the prosecution that did that? I would have thought not, but rather the defendant would have exercised his right to a jury trial for the reason you speculate - that people in a similar situation to the accused will sympathise with the accused. It is after all supposed to be a jury of your peers, and for good reasons. It allows common sense and reasonableness to trump the technicalities of the law.

In the United States, which has much more of a tradition of jury trials, and for civil cases as well as criminal cases, it is invariably the defendant who elects to have a jury trial. Prosecutors and plaintiffs prefer a bench trial, where a single judge presides, decides and sentences.

But of course the US has a proper bill of rights, and two of the first ten amendments to the constitution are about the right to a jury trial, the 6th covering criminal cases and the 7th covering civil cases. Getting a jury trial in the UK is harder, but can be achieved, and successfully, as this case shows.

[stevensfo]

A bloke wrote a blog where he described driving between John O'Groats and Land's End in nine hours and 36 minutes, an average speed of 89mph.

He was prosecuted for dangerous driving.

His defence - "I was exaggerating".

He got off of course. What a ridiculous waste of public money.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-55177486

Scott.

I can't help feeling that, as usual, we're only hearing a fraction of the truth. If he triggered a succession of speed cameras, then he broke the law. But to say that you drove from A to B, averaging 89mph, then how on earth could a prosecution prove this? Where do you draw the line. If I write a blog claiming to have broken his record, would I be prosecuted only on my word? What if I claim to have reached Land's End in nine hours, 35 minutes, taken one minute to relieve myself outside the local police station, bought a bottle of scotch and driven back to John O'Groats even faster, while drinking the whisky? Also, this was three years ago. Straight out of a Monty Python sketch.

In a country with the highest density of security cameras and therefore probably speed traps in the world, it should be pretty easy to catch someone driving that fast without relying on a blog, surely?

Steve