"Apart from you trying (and failing) to be a smartarse ? leave it to the professionals like Johnson ?"
A typically offensive post from Essex Lad designed to cover the fact that yet again he is talking nonsense when he states
"The matter is sub judice so you four are breaking the law by discussing it." which is the part of his post that you pick up on James.
No the "four" are not "breaking the law by discussing it" due to the limitations on the use of said law
DLT Charged
Re: James
David Johnson wrote:
> "Apart from you trying (and failing) to be a smartarse ? leave
> it to the professionals like Johnson ?"
>
> A typically offensive post from Essex Lad designed to cover the
> fact that yet again he is talking nonsense when he states
>
> "The matter is sub judice so you four are breaking the law by
> discussing it." which is the part of his post that you pick up
> on James.
No it wasn't and don't you think that he is big enough to stick up for himself if indeed that was what he meant, rather than relying on some prissy smartarse know-it-all like you?
>
> No the "four" are not "breaking the law by discussing it" due
> to the limitations on the use of said law
And it is illegal to discuss a case in the media (which this is and not at all the same as some bloke down the pub) after someone has been charged. I did say ? if only you'd take the blinkers off ? that the post would be unlikely to be read by any jurors but you ? even someone of your enormous wit and intellect ? cannot possibly know that it won't be. If ? and it is a huge if ? any juror is questioned about whether they have any bias against the accused (in any case) and he said he read on an internet site that the accused was this, that or the other the judge can throw out the case.
> "Apart from you trying (and failing) to be a smartarse ? leave
> it to the professionals like Johnson ?"
>
> A typically offensive post from Essex Lad designed to cover the
> fact that yet again he is talking nonsense when he states
>
> "The matter is sub judice so you four are breaking the law by
> discussing it." which is the part of his post that you pick up
> on James.
No it wasn't and don't you think that he is big enough to stick up for himself if indeed that was what he meant, rather than relying on some prissy smartarse know-it-all like you?
>
> No the "four" are not "breaking the law by discussing it" due
> to the limitations on the use of said law
And it is illegal to discuss a case in the media (which this is and not at all the same as some bloke down the pub) after someone has been charged. I did say ? if only you'd take the blinkers off ? that the post would be unlikely to be read by any jurors but you ? even someone of your enormous wit and intellect ? cannot possibly know that it won't be. If ? and it is a huge if ? any juror is questioned about whether they have any bias against the accused (in any case) and he said he read on an internet site that the accused was this, that or the other the judge can throw out the case.
Re: Essex Lad
Your promise not to respond to me didn't last long. Another Labour lie...
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Essex Lad
!laugh! !laugh! !laugh!
Re: Peter/James W
David Johnson wrote:
> There is an important limitation on the impact of the strict
> liability rule in said act:
>
> ?It applies only to a publication which creates a substantial
> risk that the course of justice in the proceedings will be
> seriously impeded or prejudiced.
>
> Now as wonderful and informed as the comments made on this
> forum are, I think those posters who commented on DLT can
> safely rest in their beds.
Thank you David Johnson for your accurate and informed post.
Hopefully it is now clear to everyone that, contrary to the claims made by Essex Lad, the "four" are not "breaking the law by discussing it".
> There is an important limitation on the impact of the strict
> liability rule in said act:
>
> ?It applies only to a publication which creates a substantial
> risk that the course of justice in the proceedings will be
> seriously impeded or prejudiced.
>
> Now as wonderful and informed as the comments made on this
> forum are, I think those posters who commented on DLT can
> safely rest in their beds.
Thank you David Johnson for your accurate and informed post.
Hopefully it is now clear to everyone that, contrary to the claims made by Essex Lad, the "four" are not "breaking the law by discussing it".
UK Babe Channels - <http://www.babechannels.co.uk>
Re: DLT Charged
I'm still not sure. Is it against the law for me to quote The Smiths lyrics or not?
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Spider
"I'm still not sure. Is it against the law for me to quote The Smiths lyrics or not?"
Hee! Hee! Not if you are in earshot of a judge apparently!!!!
Best to ignore that nonsense.
Well basically the Contempt of Court Act of 1981 has a rule called the strict liability rule. The strict liability rule indicates that conduct tending to interfere with the course of justice - particularly legal proceedings - may be treated as a contempt of court regardless of whether there was any intent to so interfere.
The strict liability rule applies only to publications. These are defined so as to include any speech, writing, broadcast or other communication in whatever form which is addressed to the public at large or any section of the public.
However, there has to be limitations on this, otherwise the courts would have a decades long backlog of contempt cases. It applies only to a publication (print, web, speech) which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings will be seriously impeded or prejudiced.
A publication made as or as part of a discussion in good
faith of public affairs or other matters of general public interest
is not to be treated as a contempt of court under the strict
liability rule if the risk of impediment or prejudice to particular
legal proceedings is merely incidental to the discussion.
So, you singing or quoting the Smiths song would not be an offence. However, if you were singing it out of tune, I would hope it would be a mandatory jail sentence!
On the other hand, if for example, Andrew Marr tweeted to let's say hundreds of thousands of followers in the week before the trial of DLT started that he had interviewed the woman concerned and the evidence supplied seemed totally believable and that if he, Marr, was on the jury there was only one way the jury could go, I doubt if he would emerge as unscathed as your good self.
So in short, it is irrelevant as to whether a judge hears you or not, as Essex Lad tries to argue, more on whether the "publication" is a substantial risk to the course of justice being seriously impeded.
Hee! Hee! Not if you are in earshot of a judge apparently!!!!
Best to ignore that nonsense.
Well basically the Contempt of Court Act of 1981 has a rule called the strict liability rule. The strict liability rule indicates that conduct tending to interfere with the course of justice - particularly legal proceedings - may be treated as a contempt of court regardless of whether there was any intent to so interfere.
The strict liability rule applies only to publications. These are defined so as to include any speech, writing, broadcast or other communication in whatever form which is addressed to the public at large or any section of the public.
However, there has to be limitations on this, otherwise the courts would have a decades long backlog of contempt cases. It applies only to a publication (print, web, speech) which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings will be seriously impeded or prejudiced.
A publication made as or as part of a discussion in good
faith of public affairs or other matters of general public interest
is not to be treated as a contempt of court under the strict
liability rule if the risk of impediment or prejudice to particular
legal proceedings is merely incidental to the discussion.
So, you singing or quoting the Smiths song would not be an offence. However, if you were singing it out of tune, I would hope it would be a mandatory jail sentence!
On the other hand, if for example, Andrew Marr tweeted to let's say hundreds of thousands of followers in the week before the trial of DLT started that he had interviewed the woman concerned and the evidence supplied seemed totally believable and that if he, Marr, was on the jury there was only one way the jury could go, I doubt if he would emerge as unscathed as your good self.
So in short, it is irrelevant as to whether a judge hears you or not, as Essex Lad tries to argue, more on whether the "publication" is a substantial risk to the course of justice being seriously impeded.
Re: Spider
David Johnson wrote:
> So in short, it is irrelevant as to whether a judge hears you
> or not, as Essex Lad tries to argue,
It was a joke. You know ? judges being old pervs would look at a porn website but the 12 good men and true serving on the jury would not...
> So in short, it is irrelevant as to whether a judge hears you
> or not, as Essex Lad tries to argue,
It was a joke. You know ? judges being old pervs would look at a porn website but the 12 good men and true serving on the jury would not...
Johnson
EXACT TERMS OF ORDER FROM MINUTES
The court, ex proprio motu, ordered in terms of section 4(2) of the Contempt
of Court Act 1981 that any publication of any report by any means of any
of the proceedings following the lunch adjournment today in this case be
postponed until the conclusion of the present current proceedings against the
accused on this indictment, this Order to come into effect immediately.
---------
This was a legal warning issued to newspapers today by Judge Lord Docherty relating to a case currently ongoing.
When the judge wrote "any publication of any report by any means of any of the proceedings" can you tell me where he meant substantial risk? Or did he mean that no comment was to be made at all?
The court, ex proprio motu, ordered in terms of section 4(2) of the Contempt
of Court Act 1981 that any publication of any report by any means of any
of the proceedings following the lunch adjournment today in this case be
postponed until the conclusion of the present current proceedings against the
accused on this indictment, this Order to come into effect immediately.
---------
This was a legal warning issued to newspapers today by Judge Lord Docherty relating to a case currently ongoing.
When the judge wrote "any publication of any report by any means of any of the proceedings" can you tell me where he meant substantial risk? Or did he mean that no comment was to be made at all?