Russell Brand

Cucking Funt said:
Juries don't convict on hearsay.
Click to expand...

Errrr....And where do you get that from?

You are talking about last century matey.

From Grok:

Yes, in England and Wales, juries can and have convicted defendants where the case rested solely or decisively on hearsay evidence.

Legal​

Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (particularly sections 114–126), hearsay evidence is admissible in criminal trials if it meets one of the statutory gateways (e.g. the witness is dead, too ill, or too frightened to attend, or it is in the interests of justice).

There is no absolute rule that a conviction based solely or decisively on hearsay is unfair or unlawful. This was confirmed by the UK Supreme Court in R v Horncastle [2009] UKSC 14 / [2010] 2 AC 373. The Court held that the safeguards in the 2003 Act (including the judge’s power under s.125 to stop a case if the hearsay is so unconvincing that a conviction would be unsafe, plus directions to the jury and the ability to challenge the maker’s credibility) are sufficient to ensure a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The European Court of Human Rights later accepted this approach in Al-Khawaja and Tahery v United Kingdom (2011).
 
I'd hate to have a defence barrister like that acting for me.

He did more for the prosecution case than for Brand.

The C4 documentary prejudiced the trial imo, it could not then be a level playing field, they had found him guilty this should not have been admissable.

The court is a theatre to me, and of course everybody is lying, so where you have little or no evidence apart from what people say, it's bound to be unsatisfactory.

😎
 
DanH said:
I see the women and girls protectors are now out defending an actual convicted rapist.

Vomit inducing.
Click to expand...

Yeah you are.

You on the other hand support policies that allowed the immigration that raped tens of thousands of mostly working class vulnerable white girls.

Oh and some murders and arrests of fathers trying to defend their girls as well.

I never supported that immigration, you supported the left who did.

You have no position to moralise.

Perhaps, one day someone will accuse you on hearsay and considering your attitude you have no right to anyone defending you.
 
Stirlingsays said:
Yeah you are.

You on the other hand support policies that allowed the immigration that raped tens of thousands of mostly working class vulnerable white girls.

Oh and some murders and arrests of fathers trying to defend their girls as well.

I never supported that immigration, you supported the left who did.

You have no position to moralise.

Perhaps, one day someone will accuse you on hearsay and considering your attitude you have no right to anyone defending you.
Click to expand...

So just to clarify, you’re on the rapist’s side?
 
steeleye20 said:
I'd hate to have a defence barrister like that acting for me.

He did more for the prosecution case than for Brand.

The C4 documentary prejudiced the trial imo, it could not then be a level playing field, they had found him guilty this should not have been admissable.

The court is a theatre to me, and of course everybody is lying, so where you have little or no evidence apart from what people say, it's bound to be unsatisfactory.

😎
Click to expand...

This is a disgraceful post.
 
DanH said:
So just to clarify, you’re on the rapist’s side?
Click to expand...

Being able to convict on hearsay evidence is a Blair reform that's a little over twenty years old and I believe it to be an unsafe legalism.

I don't believe that he's been proven to be a rapist.

You however are proven on here for spending years watching your landlord mate defend the Police response to thousands of rapes over decades and not saying one word against what he was saying.

You are in zero position to lecture anyone on rapists.

Brand shagged thousands of women and it only became an issue for the establishment in recent years....suspicously once he stopped being a darling of the left.
 
Last edited:
DanH said:
No one that far left is one of mine!
Click to expand...

Rubbish.

You have been invited several times on this forum to say what policies of the far left that you disagree with.

Everytime you declined to say.

The guy who thinks nothing of asking questions of others.
 
Stirlingsays said:
Rubbish.

You have been invited several times on this forum to say what policies of the far left that you disagree with.

Everytime you declined to say.

The guy who thinks nothing of asking questions of others.
Click to expand...

He pretends to stand up for women but probably can't even define one like his lefty landlord mate.
 
Stirlingsays said:
Being able to convict on hearsay evidence is a Blair reform that's a little over twenty years old and I believe it to be an unsafe legalism.

I don't believe that he's been proven to be a rapist.

You however are proven on here for spending years watching your landlord mate defend the Police response to thousands of rapes over decades and not saying one word against what he was saying.

You are in zero position to lecture anyone on rapists.

Brand shagged thousands of women and it only became an issue for the establishment in recent years....suspicously once he stopped being a darling of the left.
Click to expand...

He started being a darling of the right and turned to ‘Christianity’ when he realised he was f*cked and could rely on f*ckwits like you to fund his legal fees.

He’s always been a wrong’un, regardless of his politics. You’re defending a rapist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top