Freedom of speech

This language is confusing, because you are only ever 'found' guilty (in the eyes of the law), which isn't the same as actually being guilty of something - surely that's why you simply don't need to prove innocence?

 

You are right you don’t have to prove innocence. You just have to put up enough of a defence to be found not guilty.

 

Because that's innocent in the eyes of the law, right?

So it's effectively the same thing - I'm not sure I'm aware of a scenario where 'not guilty' isn't the same as innocent?

 

There's a good explanation of what a "not guilty" verdict means in a recent Secret Barrister blog:


He is presumed innocent, yes. Proven innocent, no. A “not guilty” verdict means only that the jury was not sure of guilt. This is what juries are told up and down the land ever day – if you are not sure of guilt, you must acquit. Look back at that route to verdict for the many ways in which a jury could have reached a not-guilty verdict. They may well have all agreed that Mr Stokes’ actions were most definitely reasonable self-defence. Or they may have found themselves almost sure – but not quite – that he was the aggressor and/or had gone way over the top. That is the spectrum of an acquittal – sure of innocence right through to very nearly sure of guilt. That is why we say that an acquittal should never, by itself, be heralded as “proof” of innocence. The presumption of innocence remains intact – no criminal legal consequences now flow – but anyone relying on an acquittal as proof of innocence is reaching for a meaning that the verdict does not carry.

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/08/16/the-ben-stokes-trial-what-went-wrong/

 

You are just playing with words. You are presumed innocent until found guilty therefore a not guilty verdict means you are innocent. How hard is it to understand.

 

Do you even understand that yourself !!! I will bow to your superior knowledge and accept I have wasted my time working in the criminal justice system for the last 35 years !!

 

The Secret Barrister really is rather good. If half of the half witted Free Tommy mouth breathers read it the world would be a better place.

 

Yep

 

I've got to admit that I only came across it last week but I thought it was worth a Twitter follow. Not sure if city-since-67 has read it yet though ;-)

 

Can not you work out the difference between presumed innocent and actually been innocent. You can be presumed innocent but have actually done it, they just haven't got the evidence to prove it. That is why the verdict is not guilty rather than innocent.

 

Surely in this country in the eyes of the law you are either innocent or guilty. And in Scotland there is the not proven option.
I believe the interesting point is if you are arrested and investigated and then not prosecuted that stays on your record unlike if you are tried and found innocent

 

The CPS screwed that up big time and realised it but too late. They tried to get the judge to allow them to change the charge but he refused as the defence had prepared for the affray charge rather than an assault charge

 

One thing he isn’t is innocent

 

He is not guilty

 

No it really isnt. There is no requirement for a verdict of innocent in this country because you are innocent until proven guilty therefore not guilty means innocent.

 

You have to put guilt/not guilty into the context of legal culture. Two factors, first that you are innocent until proven guilty. Secondly, that our legal system assumes that if something is not forbidden then it is allowed as opposed to ones which assume if it is not permitted then it is forbidden. This means that day to day you can get on with your life and are entitled to be treated as an innocent, law abiding person. You do not have to prove your innocence. In that sense I think the secret barrister's article may be sending you up a cul-de-sac. The burden of proof is always on the CPS to prove guilt. Of course there may be lots of wrong things you've been doing but that's for a prosecution to prove.

It's also worth saying that this is the traditional position but also our legal system is evolving. This means first there is interaction with European jurisdictions that take a different approach. Secondly, concerns about safe guarding mean that certain things may be relevant to DBS whether or not you've been found guilty of an offence.