Climate Crisis: Are we doing enough?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

spen666

Active Member
Perhaps you could improve my understanding by commenting on this story.

Fred is a night club bouncer. He is being prosecuted for assault as a result of trying to break up a dangerous disturbance. There is video evidence that shows that he struck Barney causing injury. At what point is Fred allowed to say that he hit Barney to prevent Wilma being strangled? Would his attempt to prevent greater harm be part of his defence (common law in this case?) or must he wait until convicted before offering an explanation as mitigation?

You clearly know better than me.
I have explained what a defence is, I have also explained what mitigation is.
 
You clearly know better than me.
I have explained what a defence is, I have also explained what mitigation is.

Perhaps you could improve my understanding by commenting on this story.
But maybe not. With that attitude I’m not sure I’d be instructing you.
 

spen666

Active Member
You clearly know better than me.
I have explained what a defence is, I have also explained what mitigation is.

But maybe not. With that attitude I’m not sure I’d be instructing you.

I refer you to my earlier answers

I have explained what a defence is and what mitigation is.
I am not going to start trying to comprehend your situation which neither specifies what the offence is, what the relevance of common law is and is completely lacking in details.

Provide me with the witness statements, the CCTV footage, the defendant's interview tapes and £5000 plus VATon account of cost and I will happily diarise time to give you legal advice
 
I refer you to my earlier answers

I have explained what a defence is and what mitigation is.
I am not going to start trying to comprehend your situation which neither specifies what the offence is, what the relevance of common law is and is completely lacking in details.

Provide me with the witness statements, the CCTV footage, the defendant's interview tapes and £5000 plus VATon account of cost and I will happily diarise time to give you legal advice

No, you’re ok. I think your customer facing skills are a bit lacking if that’s your approach when we’re just spitballing on a forum.
 

icowden

Legendary Member
Fred is a night club bouncer. He is being prosecuted for assault as a result of trying to break up a dangerous disturbance. There is video evidence that shows that he struck Barney causing injury. At what point is Fred allowed to say that he hit Barney to prevent Wilma being strangled? Would his attempt to prevent greater harm be part of his defence (common law in this case?) or must he wait until convicted before offering an explanation as mitigation?
That would clearly form part of his defence. Mitigation might take into account that he was coked up to his eyeballs and therefore hit Barney a lot more than might have been reasonable in the circumstances.

The issue with the contempt guy is that he was given a direction by the Court which he chose to ignore. He is now taking the penalty for that. He was offered a way out, twice, by the Judge. The Judge therefore gave him both metaphorical barrels. The Judge had directed that the motives for the civil obedience were not to be mentioned, only the circumstances of the civil disobedience so that the Jury could decide whether the defendant had broken the law. He clearly felt that the motivation would unduly sway the opinion of the Jury.
 

matticus

Guru
No, you’re ok. I think your customer facing skills are a bit lacking if that’s your approach when we’re just spitballing on a forum.

I would like to think that if I was paying for spen's time he would be much less of a dick.
On this forum he's free to be a dick, and we're free to think he's being a dick. That's irrespective of his (hard to doubt) knowledge.
 

AuroraSaab

Legendary Member
Wouldn't the same apply in other cases? A murderer defending him/herself wouldn't be allowed to use emotive special pleading about how the victim deserved it in his/her closing speech, would they? You might try to bring out evidence during witness questioning that the accused was provoked or something, but that would be trying to elicit evidence not present justification.
 
The issue with the contempt guy is that he was given a direction by the Court which he chose to ignore.

The issue, with respect, isn’t whether he held the court in contempt - he did and admitted such - but that a judge chose to issue that direction. Was that justified? I don’t think it was the right thing to do even if legally possible, but IANAL.
 
Last edited:

AndyRM

Elder Goth
I refer you to my earlier answers

I have explained what a defence is and what mitigation is.
I am not going to start trying to comprehend your situation which neither specifies what the offence is, what the relevance of common law is and is completely lacking in details.

Provide me with the witness statements, the CCTV footage, the defendant's interview tapes and £5000 plus VATon account of cost and I will happily diarise time to give you legal advice

You don't know shoot.

My solicitor knows more and he'd write it on the back of a stamp.
 

the snail

Active Member
The issue, with respect, isn’t whether he held the court in contempt - he did and admitted such - but that a judge chose to issue that direction. Was that justified? I don’t think it was the right thing to do even if legally possible, but IANAL.

Yes, the jury is free to acquit the defendant regardless of the evidence, advice from the judge etc. I think the judge felt the defendant was guilty and didn't want the jury to acquit because they sympathised with him.
 

winjim

Welcome yourself into the new modern crisis
It's almost as if causing a fuss in court and being prepared to go to prison for it is part of the MO of this organisation.
 
Top Bottom