29 minute jury deliberation

[David Johnson]

If you cannot understand the cornerstone concept in the British legal system that there is a presumption of innocence based on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", I can't be arsed to explain it to you.

Particularly when your post is ill-informed, thoroughly nasty and stupid.

I will merely summarise the main points and you can go and google them to try and gain at least a minimal understanding of what you are talking about.

1. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince either the lay judges or magistrates in the case of a magistrates court and the jury in the case of Crown Court, who are constrained to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused has to be acquitted.

2. The presumption of innocence refers to the fact that if the prosecution fails to present sufficient evidence that is legally admissible to prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt then he or she must be acquitted. That is where the phrase "presumption of innocence" comes from.

3. The phrase "presumption of innocence" has absolutely not a flying fart to do with what the police may believe or the Crown Prosecution Service may believe. It is purely about how evidence in a trial is viewed and used to decide whether someone is guilty or not.

4. When a person is acquitted, no-one is stamping on their head, this person could never ever have done this crime. It is purely a reflection that under the concept of the presumption of innocence, the evidence provided by the prosecution did not provid,e beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused was guilty. Indeed under the law of double jeopardy, advances in DNA have been used to convict murderers who have earlier been acquitted.

5. That is what the terms "presumption of innocence" and "innocent until proven guilty" actually mean. Nothing whatsoever to do with what the police or CPS think. They are not "a legal fiction". Or cannot be true concepts simply because the police think they have a "wrong un".

Now piss off and bore the arse off some lawyer in the pub who wasn't able to escape before you started engaging him in conversation.

[Essex Lad]

Of course I believe what I say, you cunt, or I wouldn't say it.

[David Johnson]

Game, set and match, m'lud!

[andy at handiwork]

That should surely be 'I rest my case, m'lud'.

[David Johnson]

Yes you are of course, correct.

I am just getting in the mood for Wimbledon.