|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Feb 1, 2012 18:11:39 GMT
He should be put on remand until the trial. Especially being the son of a drug dealer . I presume you mean remanded in custody not remanded on bail? What would be the logic of remanding someone in custody pre trail when the offence (if proven) carries only a fine of only a few £thousand as the maximum punishment? You'd have to pay them compensation for wrongful imprisonment even if they were found guilty.
|
|
|
Post by peterthornesboots on Feb 1, 2012 18:11:44 GMT
Terry is a right scumbag, how he is captain of the national team following his previous actions is a mystery to me. But he'll get away with it ... he always does
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2012 18:53:14 GMT
He should be put on remand until the trial. Especially being the son of a drug dealer . I presume you mean remanded in custody not remanded on bail? What would be the logic of remanding someone in custody pre trail when the offence (if proven) carries only a fine of only a few £thousand as the maximum punishment? You'd have to pay them compensation for wrongful imprisonment even if they were found guilty. No they wouldn't. You can remand someone into custody for non-imprisonsonable offences assuming the criteria are met. It never happens though as at the merest suggestion of an application to remand....which the CPS would tell us prior to plea....you would just plead guilty and get a discharge or fine. On other points Terry can't go to prison on this as its non-imprisonsonable....the options if found guilty are a discharge or fine. As for a football banning order this is interesting....it arguably should be asked for...its doubtful it would be applied though as it can only be imposed to prevent acts of violence or disorder at matches and the accused has history of such acts...with no pre-cons and no violence in the offence it isn't merited. See Sentinel on recent stoke cases on Tapner and Dickens as examples.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Feb 2, 2012 8:49:35 GMT
I presume you mean remanded in custody not remanded on bail? What would be the logic of remanding someone in custody pre trail when the offence (if proven) carries only a fine of only a few £thousand as the maximum punishment? You'd have to pay them compensation for wrongful imprisonment even if they were found guilty. No they wouldn't. You can remand someone into custody for non-imprisonsonable offences assuming the criteria are met. It never happens though as at the merest suggestion of an application to remand....which the CPS would tell us prior to plea....you would just plead guilty and get a discharge or fine. On other points Terry can't go to prison on this as its non-imprisonsonable....the options if found guilty are a discharge or fine. As for a football banning order this is interesting....it arguably should be asked for...its doubtful it would be applied though as it can only be imposed to prevent acts of violence or disorder at matches and the accused has history of such acts...with no pre-cons and no violence in the offence it isn't merited. See Sentinel on recent stoke cases on Tapner and Dickens as examples. But, surely, having a father who is a convicted drug dealer would not count as "meeting the criteria" for remand when the defendant is on a totally unrelated charge - ie racial abuse? So remanding someone in custody in such circumstances (in the very unlikely event that it happened) would count as wrongful imprisonment?
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Feb 2, 2012 9:21:06 GMT
the trial date has only been moved so John Terry can lead his country into Poland, just like his hero did...
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Feb 2, 2012 10:08:17 GMT
the trial date has only been moved so John Terry can lead his country into Poland, just like his hero did... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Feb 2, 2012 11:47:37 GMT
I bet the trial will be in London as well, won't it? Just like the Gerrard one was in Liverpool, where a jury of scousers decided that he definitely didn't do anything and didn't need to miss 12 months of football.
|
|
|
Post by skelman on Feb 2, 2012 12:00:41 GMT
12 Afro-Caribbean brothers/sisters required for Crown Court duty
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on Feb 2, 2012 12:01:20 GMT
Hope im never accused of anything with you lot as jurors. I always thought going for trial means you have to be proven guilty of something.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Feb 2, 2012 12:17:41 GMT
I bet the trial will be in London as well, won't it? Just like the Gerrard one was in Liverpool, where a jury of scousers decided that he definitely didn't do anything and didn't need to miss 12 months of football. terry's cases will be heard at a magistrates courts so no jury.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Feb 2, 2012 13:26:21 GMT
I bet the trial will be in London as well, won't it? Just like the Gerrard one was in Liverpool, where a jury of scousers decided that he definitely didn't do anything and didn't need to miss 12 months of football. ;D I think they choose the jurors from a slightly wider pool than the city where the trial is being held.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Feb 2, 2012 13:29:00 GMT
I bet the trial will be in London as well, won't it? Just like the Gerrard one was in Liverpool, where a jury of scousers decided that he definitely didn't do anything and didn't need to miss 12 months of football. ;D I think they choose the jurors from a slightly wider pool than the city where the trial is being held. Depends on the case really. I've had to do jury service and would have had to turn up at the courts in Hanley. I didn't have to because I was only a reserve.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Feb 2, 2012 14:13:25 GMT
there are everton fans in liverpool too you know. which perhaps could also distort justice.
|
|