|
Yes that is correct,,his plea was guilty, case closed
Footage online,,anyone could judge for themselves.
" You'll find most trials have various reporting restrictions placed upon them, sometimes from minor issues to protecting the identity of witnesses and defendants."
Most,, are you sure about that ?
I've never disputed the validity or necessity of the reporting restrictions in this case,all i know is there were no such restrictions in place when i was on the jury of a sex offence but i don't care either way...My point all along has been that the judiciary may have given ammo to the right wing or left wing or any other wing for that matter
You said " The Far Right are merely taking advantage of people's ignorance of contempt of court laws (which are designed to prevent trials from collapsing due to juries being unduly influenced etc"
Which is clearly not true...They were and never have been designed for any such thing..
The reporting restriction was to serve the purpose of preventing the jury being unduly influenced not a contempt of court law,,the defiance of the court ordered reporting restriction is the contempt
They will most certainly take advantage of this situation for all they can..As i understand it the LAW is you can film or photograph anything that you can see from a public place
My point is if you want to say that anyone is ignorant of contempt of court laws it would pay to be correct about it yourself
As for my comment about knowing the difference between lawful and legal it actually had no bearing about this debate at all,,,i just wish everybody did know the difference..
Have a nice evening |
|