Found not guilty, then judge says he may be guilty

[mistermack]

Have you heard the one about the judge and the ballet dancer?

You have now.

If the guy had been found guilty, would the judge have said " you should realise that this guilty verdict only means that the jury chose to believe your accuser, it doesn't mean that abuse actually took place " ?

I don't think so. He would maintain the fallacy that a guilty verdict means a guilty defendant. Even if he privately disagreed.
It should work both ways.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Actually, the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" is a common maxim of both English and American law, but it is relatively new.

HOWEVER, it is really a misnomer and it has NEVER really been an accurate description of either English or American common law, other than as a shorthand reference to burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Yes, we have a legal presumption of innocence that arises out of the burden of proof being on the prosecution, and that the the prosecution's burden is to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or the defendant must be acquitted of the charge That being said, an acquittal means only "the prosecution has failed to prove the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt." It does not mean that the person did not do what the victim said he did, and it does not mean it is slander to say the acquitted person actually did it. People are free to disagree with the jury.

Note - in historical English common law, the term "innocent until proven guilty" does not come up until the 1800s. No English scholar -- not Blackstone, not Coke -- nobody -- mentions it. It is in not a single court opinion prior to the 1800s. It's not in Magna Carta. It's not in the English Bill of Rights. It's not in the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution, either, by the way.

And, interestingly, it is most likely of American origin and reimported to the UK. It first comes up in American jurisprudence in the early 1800s.

That being said, read what the judge said carefully. He did NOT say the guy was actually guilty even though he was acquitted. He said that the acquittal does not mean that sexual contact did not occur, etc. I.e. - the jury's acquittal could be that they were unable to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct took place when the victim was under the age of 16. Nothing that the judge said was slanderous in the least, mainly because none of it was false and none of it was defamatory.

[Coito ergo sum]

Have you heard the one about the judge and the ballet dancer?

You have now.

If the guy had been found guilty, would the judge have said " you should realise that this guilty verdict only means that the jury chose to believe your accuser, it doesn't mean that abuse actually took place " ?

I don't think so. He would maintain the fallacy that a guilty verdict means a guilty defendant. Even if he privately disagreed.
It should work both ways.

That isn't exactly accurate, as it would be perfectly fine for him to say, in that circumstance, that the guilt was proved "beyond a reasonable doubt," instead of "he did it." It is always the case that the innocent may be convicted and judge's have acknowledged that. Sometimes, a reasonable jury will find a defendant guilty because they think there is no "reasonable" doubt, although there may be doubt. That is, a person may well have done nothing wrong, but it looks pretty damning.

What the judge said has to be read though as it is written in the article. The judge did not say he disagreed with the jury verdict or that the guy was guilty.

[Svartalf]

You forget the formula "Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat", found since the Digest of Justinian (22.3.2) (sixth century) ... the principle, though formulated differently, has been known for damn long, and includded in pretty much every legal system acquainted with Roman Law...

[MrJonno]

That being said, read what the judge said carefully. He did NOT say the guy was actually guilty even though he was acquitted. He said that the acquittal does not mean that sexual contact did not occur, etc. I.e. - the jury's acquittal could be that they were unable to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct took place when the victim was under the age of 16. Nothing that the judge said was slanderous in the least, mainly because none of it was false and none of it was defamatory.

That dangerously sounds like libel/slander to me but are judges in court exempt from this?, to even hint that a person found innocent could have done the crime is very dodgy.

If I said a person found innocent in court may have done it I'm sure I could get sued for it, I

[Coito ergo sum]

Justice doest work that way and a problem with the adversarial system is if a woman accuses someone of rape and the accused is found not guilty in practical terms the courts are saying the rape didn't take place and the woman is lying.

Not exactly. She could be mistaken. Her recollection could be faulty. She could be honestly pointing the finger at one guy when it really was another - i.e. she could have been raped, but by someone else. Under many many circumstances, she could be trying to be honest, but wrong. And, of course, sometimes people lie.

But what you recount is not a problem with the adversarial system per se, but rather an inherent problem in an evidence-based system. In any system of imperfect knowledge where people who were not there and do not have personal knowledge of the events in question are tasked with evaluated evidence presented and determining guilt or responsibility, they will have to decide who is telling the truth, what the evidence is, and what it means. That is as much a problem with inquisitorial systems as with adversarial ones.

With innocent until proven guilty a rape victim is considered to be lying until she can prove otherwise, no getting away from that

No, she's considered to be wrong until proven otherwise. Lying requires an intent element -- intent to deceive, knowing falsehoods. Rape is no different in this respect than any other assault. A man assaulted in a bar fight can't just point his finger and demand that a woman he says slapped him be convicted of assault. The prosecution must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt -- i.e., there must be no reasonable doubt remaining to suggest that the woman did not slap him. Does that mean he's presumed to be a "liar"? No, of course not.

But, again, this is a function not of adversarial or inquisitorial systems. This is a function of a burden of proof. Even if we have an inquisitorial system evaluating the evidence, the question is "did the crime charged occur?" There is no system that can have perfect knowledge render absolute verdicts. All verdicts are based on the weight of the evidence meeting a certain threshold. If one were to say "guilt must be proved beyond all or any doubt of any kind" prosecutions would be near impossible, because unless one witnessed the crime it would be hard to erase any possibility that something else happened -- and even eyewitnesses are notoriously faulty.

[Coito ergo sum]

That being said, read what the judge said carefully. He did NOT say the guy was actually guilty even though he was acquitted. He said that the acquittal does not mean that sexual contact did not occur, etc. I.e. - the jury's acquittal could be that they were unable to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct took place when the victim was under the age of 16. Nothing that the judge said was slanderous in the least, mainly because none of it was false and none of it was defamatory.

That dangerously sounds like libel/slander to me but are judges in court exempt from this?, to even hint that a person found innocent could have done the crime is very dodgy.

If I said a person found innocent in court may have done it I'm sure I could get sued for it, I

He didn't say the guy could have done the crime. He said that non-criminal sexual conduct might still have occurred, which is true. He also stated the truism that an acquittal does NOT mean that the person for sure didn't do it. An acquittal means the evidence wasn't there.

I doubt highly you would get sued for it.

Try it -- OJ Simpson might have done it. He might have murdered Nicole Brown.

I don't even think, even in England, which traditionally had a rule that even truth was not a defense to libel and slander claims, you'd lose a defamation case for that.

[Tero]

The kid became a ballet dancer! What more proof do you need? A normal kid does not turn ballet dancer.

[MrJonno]

Not exactly. She could be mistaken. Her recollection could be faulty. She could be honestly pointing the finger at one guy when it really was another - i.e. she could have been raped, but by someone else. Under many many circumstances, she could be trying to be honest, but wrong. And, of course, sometimes people lie.

It's not like other crimes, if someone is found innocent of murder in most cases no one is going to say a murder didnt take place (a successful self defence please is incredibly rare here) just that the person on trial didnt do it.

In the case of rape its going to be rare for someone to say sex didnt happen and rare for the victim to not be able to identify the attacker, its almost always comes down to consent, if the accused is found innocent the victim consented is the only reasonable thing to draw from it and hence no crime took place at all.

It's one of the reasons women often don't want to go to court, the only real evidence is going to be their statement and that of the accused, one will be believed and the other won't

[Coito ergo sum]

You forget the formula "Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat", found since the Digest of Justinian (22.3.2) (sixth century) ... the principle, though formulated differently, has been known for damn long, and includded in pretty much every legal system acquainted with Roman Law...

In English and American law, it is embodied in the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard and the fixing of the burden of proof on the prosecution. That's what the presumption of innocence is.

[Warren Dew]

Here in Scotland, there's a "not proven" verdict available, which sounds like what the judge was trying to say there.

It sounded to me like he was trying to comfort the victim, basically saying that yes, you were abused, but due to legal technicalities we can't find the bastard guilty...

It's also to be noted that the judge threw out some of the charges himself, and his charge to the jury may well have encouraged a not guilty verdict. It's not like he was just being biased against the defendant.

[Strontium Dog]

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.

19 years is nothing. Another actor from the same TV show has just been charged with similar offences - 50 YEARS after the fact.

[Svartalf]

You forget the formula "Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat", found since the Digest of Justinian (22.3.2) (sixth century) ... the principle, though formulated differently, has been known for damn long, and includded in pretty much every legal system acquainted with Roman Law...

In English and American law, it is embodied in the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard and the fixing of the burden of proof on the prosecution. That's what the presumption of innocence is.

and placing the burden of proof on the accusator stems from what maxim of Roman Law?

[Seth]

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.

19 years is nothing. Another actor from the same TV show has just been charged with similar offences - 50 YEARS after the fact.

Which is an even more egregious miscarriage of justice...

[Jason]

Says the guy that defends Texan murderers.