I can see what you are saying. It proves they are not gulity. You cannot however state they are gulity despite the verdict.
The bottom line is that if the prosecution had made a formal appeal they would have to show a circuit judge new evidence to justify a new court case,as this never happened the verdict stands,and always will. Court Dismissed steve. please log in to view this image
Ok, not wanting to get too deep into this, but being guilty and being legally guilty are two different things. There are two types of guilt: a. The fact of being responsible for the commission of an offence b. The fact of having been found to have violated a criminal law You can still be factually guilty, i.e. you have committed a criminal act, but be legally not guilty because the jury has acquitted you. Hence the phrase "feeling guilty". I think that's what you and merry are crossing wires over. Anyway, not that important and definitely not banter. I'm off to bed.
See my point above to Steve. The ACT itself is neither legal or illegal. On the balance of evidence, the judgement was that it did not contravene the law.
In other words no crime was committed! But hey whats the point of telling them, they have read wicki.
Yes, and by nature a judgement is not in any way proof. In certain cases, there is enough evidence/witnesses etc. to virtually prove something, but a verdict is not, and never will be, proof. In Gerrard's trial, to be more specific, as Forefeckdave said, he was found not to have contravened the law. Therefore, he may well have committed the ACT itself, but said ACT was not considered to be a CRIME. The point I was trying to make, in other words, was that you could commit the act itself (i.e beat someone up) but be found 'not guilty' of a crime. Guilty of the act, but not of the crime, really. In other cases, people have committed murder and originally been found not guilty, only to be convicted years later. In the original trial were they 'proven' not guilty, or simply judged to be?
Yes,but the decision of innocent by the jury is legally classed as proof the defendant has proved his/her innocence. and unless the prosecution can come up with new evidence relevant to the trial the judiciary wont justify more of the tax payers money is wasted on a trouble causing DJ that plays crap tunes.
Firstly. It had to have been proved 'without reasonable doubt'' that Gerrard was guilty.However they were unable to thus he was deemed to be innocent. However in Ryan Giggs' case in November...it will be proven without reasonable doubt that he's guilty,because he told the courts that he was a faithful family man'' in order to get an injunction which was a lie because he wasn't a ''faithful family man'' he was servicing his sister in law for 8 years.He got an injunction under false pretences,this is known as purjery and carries a maximum 7 years of a custodial sentence.When Giggs lifts the injunction in November..He's up **** creek without a paddle as he faces both crimimal and civil action.
That's exactly my point. You can be morally guilty of something but still be found legally not guilty of it. Two different systems of judging someone based on the same act.
Sorry Swarbs but like it or lump it,Giggs is going down for a couple of years,maybe not 7 years but at least a couple.Its generally a custodial sentence for purjery.
