he didn't press charges iirc but the prosecution service went ahead with the case.
Murdoch shaving foam attack guy gets 6 weeks in jail
- Thread starter RavenXXX2
- Start date
he didn't press charges iirc but the prosecution service went ahead with the case.
Probably due to the fact that it was in a Parliamentary Committee.
A person does not have to make a complaint of assault for the attacker to be convicted if sufficient evidence is available. Even if RM didnt want to report it, there is sufficient CCTV and eye-witness evidence to prosecute regardless.
A lot of people are of the opinion that the sentence is harsh. Given that this attack would be considered "contempt" if it happened in a court which, for all intents and purposes, this hearing can be compared to then I don't see the issue.
Using the straw man of "but this more serious crime got a far more leniant sentence" is just wrong. Judges do not pass sentence on individual cases by checking out what his buddy did on another case last week
the law says otherwise.
lol!
Technically I don't think that was self defence. I'm not convinced there was a need for her actions.
I never knew you were Judge Dread Tefal, you should get off the computer more and get out there and kick some ass boyo!
In relation to Mrs Murdoch's actions - As I say, if the CPS had enough evidence to prosecute and get a conviction based solely on camera footage and eye-witness statements even though RM didn't make a complaint of assault, then surely the same could be said against his wife.... They didn't ergo they deemed it "self defence"
I fail to understand why some people cannot grasp this
I fail to understand why some people cannot grasp this
So you're saying there is a large illegal conspiracy containing the entire cps, large sections of the police and judges to not prosecute this person?
Can you prove it?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
My statement would have said his wife struck the assailant more than once. The CPS makes the decision re the assault but my personal opinion is that she acted reasonably.
Prosecution lawyers must take considerations into account.
the nature of the offence being committed by the victim;
the degree of excessiveness of the force used by the accused;
the extent of the injuries, and the loss or damage, sustained by either or both parties to the incident;
whether the accused was making an honest albeit over zealous attempt to uphold the law rather than taking the law into his own hands for the purposes of revenge or retribution.
You and I have the luxury of hindsight. Mrs Murdoch did not.
Legally, it was a clear case of self defence, she reacted reasonably in defence of another, and stopped as soon as the percieved threat was over.
The law doesn't care whether there was a 'need' for her actions, only that there was a reasonable perception of the need at time.
Dredd! All your other failings I can forgive, but that one is beyond the pale!
Thanks.
But we shouldn't add to the tariff by stealth, if we need a charge relevent to the Houses then we should have it. Given the number of crimes that seem to happen in and around the palace it might not seem to be a bad thing if possible..
Using the straw man of "but this more serious crime got a far more leniant sentence" is just wrong. Judges do not pass sentence on individual cases by checking out what his buddy did on another case last week
oooh, rolleyes and hyperbole. Goody goody. It was all so sensible up until then.
Erm, comparison isn't wrong actually otherwise we'd have no precidents and we would be left with a system open to unfairness or even abuse. Direct like for like is difficult, the examples I outlined above were lazy as I'm not a case lawyer or anything like such but they are close enough for the point I outlined.
Aww, you're like the little yappy dog that won't go away.
Now run off with your straw man and bury it somewhere, nice and deep.
Aww, you're like the little yappy dog that won't go away.
Now run off with your straw man and bury it somewhere, nice and deep.
what straw man?
You say she committed assault on video with lots of evidence.
Cps haven't prosecuted she has not been charged nor found guilty of assault in a court, so in your own words now why hasn't she?
is it because the cps and others found her to be acting legally in self defence or what is the alternative?
She started as soon as the threat was over in my opinion.
This 'anthrax', or whatever, in the foam "so I bashed him" point of view doesn't seem like self defence to me?
Indeed.
Honestly. If this happened in a courtroom with any other 80 year old, there would be outrage.
It seems people lose the plot with the victim being someone they don't like, and with the "courtroom" being a parliamentary court.
It seems people lose the plot with the victim being someone they don't like, and with the "courtroom" being a parliamentary court.
No, she started as soon as she perceived the threat from where I was sitting.
what straw man?
You say she committed assault on video with lots of evidence.
Actually, that's another straw man. I never said anything like "lots of evidence". All I've said is I disagree with some people's opinion on here.
I said she assaulted him, which she did appear to do twice on the video, and technically she did so.
I couldn't comment on the inner workings of the CPS, it's a mystery even to those in the know sometimes I think, but I'd guess because it's par for the course really. There is no public interest in prosecution there, but there is against the dimwit comedian.