Found not guilty, then judge says he may be guilty

Post Reply
devogue

Found not guilty, then judge says he may be guilty

Post by devogue » Tue Jun 11, 2013 2:02 am

A former Coronation Street star walked free from court yesterday after a jury acquitted him of abusing a teenage boy.

Andrew Lancel, 42, had been accused of using his status to groom the child for sex acts. Judge Clement Goldstone QC told Lancel’s counsel, Andrew Menary QC, that the verdicts did not mean sexual encounters never took place.

He said: ‘The defendant was acquitted on the evidence, and rightly so, but it is important that the complainant, who is clearly scarred by an experience, should understand that the jury verdict does not necessarily involve rejection of his account of a sexual encounter or encounters with the defendant.

‘It is a statement that the prosecution have failed to make the jury sure that abuse of the type alleged occurred during the period covered by the indictment and in particular before the complainant’s 16th birthday, now more than 18 years ago.’

On one occasion, father-of-one Lancel, who starred in more than 100 episodes of the ITV soap opera as Frank Foster, was said to have pulled down the boy’s pants and touched him. On another, he was said to have encouraged the boy, who was 14 or 15 at the time, to carry out sex acts on him.

His accuser, now a 34-year-old ballet dancer, said he had been left emotionally distraught.
Lancel was charged under his real name of Andrew Watkinson with six counts of indecent assault on the youngster in 1994 when the teenager was attending a theatre group.

But yesterday the jury at Liverpool Crown Court took just 29 minutes to clear him.

Lancel looked to the ceiling in relief and his wife of seven years, Louise, burst into tears when the verdict was delivered. Afterwards, they left the court hand in hand. Smiling, Lancel posed for photographs but declined to comment on the case.
His solicitor, Stuart Nolan, said: ‘Andrew would like to thank his family and friends and all parties for their support and prayers.’

The jury heard Lancel first approached the boy after watching him rehearse for a musical in Southport, Merseyside. The actor, who also played DI Neil Manson in The Bill, denied any sexual contact took place.
Last week the judge told the jury to dismiss two of the six charges as his accuser could not be certain he was 14 at the time of the incidents. Yesterday’s not-guilty verdicts on the remaining four counts related to when the accuser was 15.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... g-boy.html

What the fuck is this judge on?

A man has been tried for weeks before a jury of his peers and they have found him not guilty of any crime after just 29 minutes of deliberation. He is absolutely innocent in the eyes of the law and no man has a right to cast doubt on his innocence. Mr Lancel should sue the arse off the judge - his comments were disgraceful.

User avatar
Xamonas Chegwé
Bouncer
Bouncer
Posts: 50939
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:23 pm
About me: I have prehensile eyebrows.
I speak 9 languages fluently, one of which other people can also speak.
When backed into a corner, I fit perfectly - having a right-angled arse.
Location: Nottingham UK
Contact:

Re: Found not guilty, then judge says he may be guilty

Post by Xamonas Chegwé » Tue Jun 11, 2013 2:14 am

Duplicate OP moved to a suitable receptacle. :tea:
A book is a version of the world. If you do not like it, ignore it; or offer your own version in return.
Salman Rushdie
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic.
House MD
Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view.
Sandy Denny
This is the wrong forum for bluffing :nono:
Paco
Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish!
Calilasseia
I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants.
Twoflower
Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse
Millefleur

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74146
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Found not guilty, then judge says he may be guilty

Post by JimC » Tue Jun 11, 2013 2:43 am

I don't think you can sue judges for anything they say in court...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Warren Dew
Posts: 3781
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:41 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA
Contact:

Re: Found not guilty, then judge says he may be guilty

Post by Warren Dew » Tue Jun 11, 2013 3:25 am

A "not guilty" finding has never meant "innocent".

devogue

Re: Found not guilty, then judge says he may be guilty

Post by devogue » Tue Jun 11, 2013 3:55 am

Warren Dew wrote:A "not guilty" finding has never meant "innocent".
In an English court you are innocent until proven guilty, and that has been the case for many centuries.

The defendant in this case was not proven guilty, therefore he is innocent in the eyes of the law and it is slander to suggest otherwise.

His peers have dispensed justice and then the judge still sees fit to question his innocence. Well here's a thing - perhaps Judge Goldstone would like to go on Twitter this evening and tweet that he thinks Lord McAlpine is guilty of the crimes people insinuated that he committed but is actually innocent of.

User avatar
Warren Dew
Posts: 3781
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:41 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA
Contact:

Re: Found not guilty, then judge says he may be guilty

Post by Warren Dew » Tue Jun 11, 2013 4:09 am

devogue wrote:The defendant in this case was not proven guilty, therefore he is innocent in the eyes of the law and it is slander to suggest otherwise.
"In the eyes of the law" is a major caveat.

User avatar
charlou
arseist
Posts: 32528
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:36 am

Re: Found not guilty, then judge says he may be guilty

Post by charlou » Tue Jun 11, 2013 4:26 am

Is a court judge and representative of the law not supposed to act completely impartially?
no fences

devogue

Re: Found not guilty, then judge says he may be guilty

Post by devogue » Tue Jun 11, 2013 4:27 am

Warren Dew wrote:
devogue wrote:The defendant in this case was not proven guilty, therefore he is innocent in the eyes of the law and it is slander to suggest otherwise.
"In the eyes of the law" is a major caveat.
It's the most important one.

If a man stands trial accused of a heinous crime he can expect his habits, desires, foibles, history, family, character, everything about him to be dissected completely and examined in great detail. By all accounts this process is incredibly stressful, but it is one we accept as a society because it is a necessary process if we are to dispense justice and try our damndest to bring purported criminal events to a conclusion.

If at the end of this tortuous process the defendant is found not guilty, then he is innocent. He's not mostly innocent, or partly guilty - he is innocent and free to go about his business after running the gauntlet (in a manner).

Now of course we all like to speculate in private whether such and such a person actually got away with it, but it is absolutely wrong for a judge in a court of law to indulge in such speculation when a jury has clearly acquitted a defendant - now a cloud hangs over him and the whiff of guilt is still attached, and by the judiciary at that.

devogue

Re: Found not guilty, then judge says he may be guilty

Post by devogue » Tue Jun 11, 2013 4:27 am

RiverF wrote:Is a court judge and representative of the law not supposed to act completely impartially?
Utterly :this:

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Found not guilty, then judge says he may be guilty

Post by Seth » Tue Jun 11, 2013 4:39 am

This is the real travesty:
His accuser, now a 34-year-old ballet dancer, said he had been left emotionally distraught.
Lancel was charged under his real name of Andrew Watkinson with six counts of indecent assault on the youngster in 1994 when the teenager was attending a theatre group.
That's nineteen years. I seriously question whether or not a fair trial can be had on a "he said, he said" basis with no forensic or documentary evidence at all after such a long time.

My position is that if you are the victim of a crime, you need to report the crime either immediately or not at all, because such a long delay denies the accused a fair trial more as each day passes and the evidence grows cold, old and is destroyed...and memories fade and become changed.

If you can't bring yourself to file a complaint within a few weeks at most, then you ought to be barred from doing so at all.

Not only is it unfair to the accused, but if a crime actually did happen, you are assisting in victimizing others if you fail or refuse to report it, which makes you complicitious in subsequent crimes of the same kind because you could have tried to stop it and didn't.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
Pappa
Non-Practicing Anarchist
Non-Practicing Anarchist
Posts: 56488
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:42 am
About me: I am sacrificing a turnip as I type.
Location: Le sud du Pays de Galles.
Contact:

Re: Found not guilty, then judge says he may be guilty

Post by Pappa » Tue Jun 11, 2013 5:58 am

Generally the CPS don't bring cases like this to court because of the risk of an unsafe verdict. Only when there is strong corroborative evidence from multiple sources do they usually proceed.

User avatar
Cormac
Posts: 6415
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Found not guilty, then judge says he may be guilty

Post by Cormac » Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:45 am

Pappa wrote:Generally the CPS don't bring cases like this to court because of the risk of an unsafe verdict. Only when there is strong corroborative evidence from multiple sources do they usually proceed.

Still Dev is right. The judge behaved dreadfully here, and brought disrepute onto the law and the judiciary.

Unfortunately, e cannot be sued for defamation, as his comments are privileged. However, the defendant could appeal, and have that comment stricken from the record.
FUCKERPUNKERSHIT!


Wanna buy some pegs Dave, I've got some pegs here...
You're my wife now!

User avatar
Jason
Destroyer of words
Posts: 17782
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Found not guilty, then judge says he may be guilty

Post by Jason » Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:52 am

Check your privilege.

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 41035
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: Found not guilty, then judge says he may be guilty

Post by Svartalf » Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:56 am

Cormac wrote:
Pappa wrote:Generally the CPS don't bring cases like this to court because of the risk of an unsafe verdict. Only when there is strong corroborative evidence from multiple sources do they usually proceed.

Still Dev is right. The judge behaved dreadfully here, and brought disrepute onto the law and the judiciary.

Unfortunately, e cannot be sued for defamation, as his comments are privileged. However, the defendant could appeal, and have that comment stricken from the record.
At the risk of being found guilty on the next round? that would be foolish would it not?
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
Cormac
Posts: 6415
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Found not guilty, then judge says he may be guilty

Post by Cormac » Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:00 am

Svartalf wrote:
Cormac wrote:
Pappa wrote:Generally the CPS don't bring cases like this to court because of the risk of an unsafe verdict. Only when there is strong corroborative evidence from multiple sources do they usually proceed.

Still Dev is right. The judge behaved dreadfully here, and brought disrepute onto the law and the judiciary.

Unfortunately, e cannot be sued for defamation, as his comments are privileged. However, the defendant could appeal, and have that comment stricken from the record.
At the risk of being found guilty on the next round? that would be foolish would it not?

No no.

He could appeal to a higher court on the specific point of the judge's comments. Appeal Courts tend to examine points of law, rather than review entire cases. In this situation, the not guilty verdict has been undermined by the trial judge, and that is a serious point of law suitable for an Appeal Court to examine.
FUCKERPUNKERSHIT!


Wanna buy some pegs Dave, I've got some pegs here...
You're my wife now!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 18 guests