Court case involving Albion players - the (new) only thread allowed - ALL found NOT GUILTY

[nwgull]

Court case involving Albion players - the (new) only thread allowed

Is anyone, apart from the members of the jury, allowed to know if majority decided guilty or not guilty on the other 7 charges? I would imagine that this would have a significant bearing on whether or not the prosecution pushed for a retrial.

 

[CP 0 3 BHA]

Are the prosecution given any steer on which way the jury were veering on the undetermined cases? You'd think they'd be less likely to demand a retrial if 8 or 9 of the jury were in the "not guilty" camp.

 

[Acker79]

On what basis does the prosecution have the right to "demand" a re trial?
I can understand them wanting, or even wishing a re trail.
But how can they demand one?

Just semantics, really. 'Demand' means to 'ask for' (authoritatively).

Am I right in thinking that the jury has found that


Dunk did not gain any sexual satisfaction from witnessing a sexual act,

But

No decision has been made as to whether he actually participated in a sexual assault.


As for the rest, no decision on anything!

I believe the voyeurism charge related to the taking of photographs rather than simply witnessing events. So, they reached a decision on if he took photos for the purpose of sexual gratification (not guilty), but not on whether he sexually assaulted her.

 

[The Oldman]

From BBC website

"Prosecutor Richard Barton told the court he would seek a retrial, provisionally set for 22 April, after discussing the case with the complainant."

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Re: Court case involving Albion players - the (new) only thread allowed

So the requirements for a re-trial are whether a majority verdict is likely to be achieved next time around (in a sense)?

If so, does the fact that the prosecution have demanded a re-trial mean that they believe the jury was nearing a majority in favour of them for the other 7 charges?

I've tried to be as careful as possible in that post. The second line is an actual question rather than a guess/assumption.

No one can really answer your question other than to say that you can't draw any inference as to the reasoning.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Sky news have provisional date for retrial down as April 22nd

I just wish they were as fast to give out dates when it comes to televising football matches.

 

[blue'n'white]

Court case involving Albion players - the (new) only thread allowed

This will (presumably) cost whoever loses it a fortune
Am I correct in assuming that if its a draw again (so to speak) the money for the cost of the trial comes out of the public purse ?

 

[Triggaaar]

Am I right in thinking that the jury has found that

Dunk did not gain any sexual satisfaction from witnessing a sexual act,

But

No decision has been made as to whether he actually participated in a sexual assault.


As for the rest, no decision on anything!

Yes, I believe so. Which is a bit odd.

So the requirements for a re-trial are whether a majority verdict is likely to be achieved next time around (in a sense)?

If so, does the fact that the prosecution have demanded a re-trial mean that they believe the jury was nearing a majority in favour of them for the other 7 charges?

No not really. They won't know how the jury were voting, except that 10 of the jury voted not guilty on one verdict.

I believe the voyeurism charge related to the taking of photographs rather than simply witnessing events.

No it isn't. We've been told that if you watched and gained sexual satisfaction (and some other points like whether you believed the victim was consenting etc) then that is a crime. Also, we've been told that taking photos isn't a crime if you (reasonably) didn't think there was anything wrong and you weren't gaining sexual satisfaction from it.

- - - Updated - - -

This will (presumably) cost whoever loses it a fortune

Is there anything to suggest the victim is paying her own fees?

 

[Cadiz Seagull]

From BBC website

"Prosecutor Richard Barton told the court he would seek a retrial, provisionally set for 22 April, after discussing the case with the complainant."

Sounds fair enough to me that the prosecution would first ask the complainant if she would agree to go through a retrial. If she wouldn't - and who could blame her if she didn't want to - then the whole thing would collapse.

Assuming she says she would then the CPS has to decide if it is in the public interest to do so; in other words do they think their is a reasonable chance of convictions. The jury deliberated for three days and didn't convict, which is clearly something the CPS would take into consideration. The CPS will need to be reasonably confident that a different jury faced with the same evidence would come to a different conclusion.

- - - Updated - - -

Is there anything to suggest the victim is paying her own fees?

What's that got do do with anything? She isn't suing them. The CPS brought the case against them, not her.

 

[n1 gull]

FFS this just wants to go away now

 

[Surf's Up]

What a mess for everyone.

This

 

[Weststander]

What charges does Lewis Dunk still face?

 

[mwrpoole]

I know that the Jury needed to get to 10-2 at minimum to find guilty, but is there an opposite score when a verdict of not guilty is reached, i.e. 2-10, or does it have to be unanimous 0-12. What I'm trying to gauge is what the range of possible scores might have been. Could it potentially be 6-6, and does anyone ever find out?

 

[screamadelica]

Is anyone, apart from the members of the jury, allowed to know if majority decided guilty or not guilty on the other 7 charges? I would imagine that this would have a significant bearing on whether or not the prosecution pushed for a retrial.

Guilty or not guilty this trial has potentialy destroyed Dunks carreer in football a year ago premier league clubs were interested in signing him,how much has the lad lost in premier league earnings and how much more will he lose if this case drags on for another year

- - - Updated - - -

Is anyone, apart from the members of the jury, allowed to know if majority decided guilty or not guilty on the other 7 charges? I would imagine that this would have a significant bearing on whether or not the prosecution pushed for a retrial.

 

[BensGrandad]

Guilty or not guilty this trial has potentialy destroyed Dunks carreer in football a year ago premier league clubs were interested in signing him,how much has the lad lost in premier league earnings and how much more will he lose if this case drags on for another year

- - - Updated - - -

assuming that the retrial is as suggested set for 22nd April it will not go on for another year; It will or should be concluded this season.

 

[Acker79]

I know that the Jury needed to get to 10-2 at minimum to find guilty, but is there an opposite score when a verdict of not guilty is reached, i.e. 2-10, or does it have to be unanimous 0-12. What I'm trying to gauge is what the range of possible scores might have been. Could it potentially be 6-6, and does anyone ever find out?

No. The jury had to agree by a majority of at least 10-2 whatever they decided.

 

[BensGrandad]

No. The jury had to agree by a majority of at least 10-2 whatever they decided.

Perhaps my interpretation of guilty is wrong as a vote of 10-2 for guilty ensure a guilty verdict any other vote surely is not not guilty as guilt has to be proven not innocence.

 

[arewethereyet?]

What charges does Lewis Dunk still face?

I cannot believe you are seriously asking this question !!

Do you not know what the original charges were for ?

If he has been cleared of voyeurism then it only leaves the more serious one.

 

[Weststander]

I cannot believe you are seriously asking this question !!

Do you not know what the original charges were for ?

If he has been cleared of voyeurism then it only leaves the more serious one.

Not having a detailed knowledge or interest in the case, no I didn't know the precise charge/s he still faces.

I love the taking life too seriously "the more serious one" without saying what the charge is. These trial threads really have brought out some funny behaviour.

 

[Northstandite]

I cannot believe you are seriously asking this question !!

Do you not know what the original charges were for ?

If he has been cleared of voyeurism then it only leaves the more serious one.

Oh cheer up, for christ sake. What a