|
assizes- no bill
Thu, 02 Mar 2006 16:38:34 GMT
soc.genealogy.britain
previous
mik...
|
In assizes documents I've been reading, some verdicts are " No Bill "
Am I correct in thinking this means that no evidence was put forward and
so they were acquitted ?
Charani...
|
I've always understood it to mean that there was no case to answer so
the case was thrown out and the accused acquitted.
The opposite being True Bill, ie case proven, the accused was guilty.
|
T.M. Sommers...
|
It means there was no indictment. A grand jury returns either a
true bill or no bill. Britain stopped using grand juries around
1930 (according to Wikipedia).
Charles Ellson...
|
ITYF that should be England and Wales. You can't believe everything
you see in Wikipaedia.
T.M. Sommers...
|
Britain as opposed to the US or other common-law countries.
Scotland's legal system has always been different.
Charani...
|
Scotland is part of Britain.
Graeme Wall...
|
Alledgedly :-)
Charani...
|
True.
It could be the other way around. Or so some would have us believe
;))
|
|
Hugh Watkins...
|
but they speak different legalese
at least 70 french words used there only
Hugh W
|
T.M. Sommers...
|
But their legal system is different. Not just separate, but
different. Just as an example, they have, or had, the not-proven
verdict in criminal trials, in addition to guilty and not guilty.
Not proven meant, basically, that they didn't prove you did it,
but don't do it again.
Charani...
|
Yes, their legal system is different as are a lot of other things,
however, they are still part of Britain.
They still have the Not Proven verdict and, yes, I know what the
verdict means. An eminently sensible one IMO.
T.M. Sommers...
|
It is sensible only if you disregard the presumption of
innocence. The presumption of innocence means that the
government must prove that the accused is guilty. If it fails to
do so, the presumption means that the accused is innocent. The
not-proven verdict essentially eliminates the presumption, and
forces the accused to prove his innocence in order to get a not
guilty instead of a not proven.
Charani...
|
It's sensible because it says "we know you did it but we just can't
prove it.". It means that the accused has to be very careful or s/he
T.M. Sommers...
|
There is nothing sensible about that at all. If you know he did
it, that can only be because that fact was proven, and by
definition it was not proven.
Plus, doing something and being guilty are two different things.
A jury could decide that what was done was not criminal.
|
could still go down.
T.M. Sommers...
|
The accused who receives a not proven verdict is in on more
jeopardy than anyone else for future crimes.
|
|
Charles Ellson...
|
"Not Proven" is equivalent to an English verdict of "Not Guilty". In
T.M. Sommers...
|
The mechanism may be the same, but the verdicts are not equivalent.
Charles Ellson...
|
Perhaps you would like to tell a number of High Court judges and
various lawyers who have stated this in the past ? A "Not Guilty"
verdict in an English court only requires the prosecution to fail to
prove its case, the same requirement for a "Not Proven" verdict in
T.M. Sommers...
|
That's what I'm trying to say. In England (and elsewhere in the
common-law world) you get a not guilty when the prosecution fails
to prove its case. In Scotland, to get a not guilty, you need
more, namely proof of innocence.
Charles Ellson...
|
You don't. You need no more than the judge's or jury's opinion; there
is nothing to prevent a "Not Guilty" verdict in the total absence of
evidence for the defence if the judge/jury deems it appropriate, a
jury has no obligation to justify or explain its decision although a
judge might have to answer to higher authority if he supplies a
perverse verdict.
|
|
Scotland. Both "Not Guilty" and "Not Proven" have the same end result
(as I said before, proof of innocence might be impossible), unless you
are applying tabloid standards of interpretation.
|
|
Scotland "Not Guilty" takes the decision beyond mere presumption
although the practical legal effect is the same for both verdicts; it
is usually the readers of certain newspapers who cannot grasp the
concepts involved and who believe what they are fed by those papers
that the person was guilty anyway but the jury/judge couldn't be
bothered to arrive at the "correct" verdict.
Charani...
|
I don't read newspapers and I was told by a Scot what the "Not Proven"
verdict was used for.
Charles Ellson...
|
Here's a non-tabloid article from the "Scotsman" (now "compact", not
tabloid) which might be more informative:-
|
I don't think it's a case of the judge and/or jury "couldn't be
bothered to arrive at the 'correct' verdict", more that there was
doubt as to the full innocence of the accused based on the evidence as
presented in court.
Charles Ellson...
|
No, that is not the meaning.
"Not Guilty" means that the jury/judge is satisfied of the accused's
innocence. It has no equivalent in English Law where the same-named
(but with different meaning) verdict merely indicates that the
prosecution has failed to prove its case irrespective of whether or
not there is a possibility that the accused _might_ be guilty.
"Not Proven" means that the jury/judge has not been convinced by the
prosecution that the accused is guilty (their suspicions are not
proper to the forming of the verdict). It is not for the accused to
prove him/herself innocent and in many cases such proof might not be
possible despite the accused being completely free of involvement.
In either case, the accused is generally free to leave the court with
T.M. Sommers...
|
Precisely (although I would not characterize the presumption of
innocence as 'mere'). It forces the defendant to assume some
burden of proof in order to be declared not guilty, which is not
Charles Ellson...
|
No it doesn't. A "Not Guilty" verdict is quite possible if the judge
or jury consider that the circumstances of the case make it plain the
accused is not guilty, the panel need not have utterred a single word
in his/her defence.
T.M. Sommers...
|
I'm sure it happens, but it is not logically possible, unless the
Charles Ellson...
|
It is logically possible. All it requires is for the prosecution
evidence to reach a point where, instead of proving guilt, it has in
reality established the innocence of the accused. It could be
something simple like a witness supplying a suitable answer to a
question which depends on information supplied by a previous witness;
both witnesses could be entirely truthful but previously unaware of
information supplied by the other which limits the available answers
they give (the prosecution's choice of question having been reduced by
the previous witness's answers).
|
prosecution witnesses spring surprises on the court. If those
Charles Ellson...
|
..or the prosecution has overlooked the detail which proves innocence.
|
witnesses stick to their original stories, there can be no basis
for a jury to reach a positive conclusion that the defendant
didn't do it.
Charles Ellson...
|
You've overlooked any facts (not specific to the case) known to jury
members which might not have been presented as evidence but which
could be capable of putting a truer light upon the evidence than that
intended or believed by the prosecution. A witness or witnesses might
give honest evidence to which the prosecution has awarded a particular
status but which sufficient jury members properly decide has a
different effect/meaning, a bit like the collective opinions which
arrive at an agreed change to the original answer given to some
queries in this group.
|
|
|
necessary in the rest of the common-law world. It thus waters
down the presumption of innocence.
Charles Ellson...
|
Presumption =/= Proof
Thus you find that those found not guilty (or Not Proven in Scotland)
are often still accused of e.g. "getting off on a technicality".
|
|
no criminal record entry being made.
The accused might still have some degree of culpability but WRT to
criminal law verdicts you are either guilty or not, you cannot be
partly guilty as is inferred by phrases like "full innocence" which
seems to be similar to what got a Sheriff in trouble with the Court of
Appeal as referred to in the above article.
|
|
|
|
David Nicholson...
|
It looks to me, as a non-Scottish lawyer, that the Scottish verdict of "not
proven" is the equivalent of "not guilty" in the rest of the world based on
British law. Everywhere else, the verdict of "not guilty" only means that
the prosecution has not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Scots
T.M. Sommers...
|
Since everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, failure
to prove guilt implies innocence.
andrew...
|
Is this in fact an English, Scottish or British concept?
Charles Ellson...
T.M. Sommers...
|
In origin? I don't know. None of the books I checked (briefly,
I confess) had much to say on the subject, and I know virtually
nothing about the history of Scottish law. In practice, the
presumption of innocence exists throughout the common-law world,
as far as I know. I think that the not proven verdict reduces
its effect, which is a Bad Thing.
Interestingly, in the past the rule was that since the defendant
did not have to prove anything, he was not allowed to present any
evidence. Conversely, in the ecclesiastical courts, where the
burden of proof was on the defendant, the prosecution was not
allowed to present evidence.
|
Yours Aye Andrew Sellon
|
|
give a meaning to "not guilty" (innocent) which has no equivalent elsewhere.
Chris Watts...
|
The media in E+W assume that found not-guilty means found innocent based,
presumably, on the legal presumption that you are innocent until proven
guilty. It seems to me that the Scots have got it right.
|
In the Scottish criminal appeal case of Fay v H.M. Advocate 1989 S.C.C.R.
373, the passage in the sheriff's (judge's) charge to the jury had been:
"In the event that you decide that the accused is innocent of a particular
charge, you should return a verdict of not guilty in respect of that charge.
In the event that you decide that the Crown has failed to prove its case on
a particular charge, then you should return a verdict of not proven, that is
to say, if you are left with a reasonable doubt as to his guilt on a
particular charge."
On appeal, this charge was held to be "adequate". Typical Scottish reserve?
Charani...
|
Having discussed the "Not Proven" verdict with a Scot, I was advised
that it meant exactly what it says, and is not the equivalent of "Not
guilty". The case you cite, sums it up nicely. The Scots are more
precise.
|
David Nicholson
Malvary J Cole...
|
Does that mean, then with a verdict of not proven, if more evidence came to
light the person could be tried again? Am I right in thinking that you
Charani...
|
I would have thought that that was possible, but not being Scottish
nor in the legal profession, I wouldn't like to say with any
certainty. Perhaps one of the Scottish members of the group could
shed some light on that aspect.
|
can't be tried again, if you have been found not guilty.
Charani...
|
I'm fairly certain that is the case in English law. I think it's the
double jeopardy thingy. I'm not sure how a case would stand if new
evidence came to hand: such as DNA evidence. There have been a few
cases recently where an old crime has been solved through scientific
advances like DNA testing.
|
Ali...
|
To the best of my knowledge, a not proven verdict is identical in law to not
guilty, ie you can't be tried again.
Except that, at least in England, the law has been changed, and the Appeal
Court can now quash a not guilty verdict under certain circumstances.
Apparently, under Scots law the two available verdicts were 'Proven' and
'Not Proven'; rather more accurate than the English verdicts, then in one
case the defendant was so obviously innocent, the jury returned a verdict of
'Not Guilty'. This may be a myth.
Charani...
|
I think Rabbit said there were three: Proven (or guilty), Not Proven
and Not Guilty when this was discussed a while back.
Ali...
|
Yes, Proven, meaning exactly the same as Guilty, has rather disappeared,
whereas Not Proven, having a different implication, though the same legal
effect, as Not Guilty, has stuck around.
|
|
|
Malvary in Ottawa, who has never been unfortunate enough to need to know the
difference.
Charani...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eve McLaughlin...
|
It means that the bare bones of the accusation were presented to the
Grand Jury, and either they decided it was total rubbish, or the accuser
withdrew at this point (you get this in family and in neighbourhood
disputes, where the parties have had time to cool down). Or, of course,
sometimes the accuser had been got at and was threatened with damage if
he proceeded.
No True Bill meant no sufficient case to answer, so the charge was
dropped and the accused released from gaol (after paying the gaoler a
fee to leave). It doesn't exactly mean the same as innocent, but it
does mean no case, no conviction.
T.M. Sommers...
|
There is a presumption of innocence, so no trial does mean innocent.
|
mik...
|
Thanks to all who replied, It arose out of a case were two people were
accused of stealing some chains from some one with the same name as one
of the accused . It ended with No Bill which made me think they were
aquited .
|
|
Eve McLaughlin...
|
Geoff...
|
I suppose so if it was the Old Bill that didn't bother to turn up!!!
andrew...
|
Disciplinary charge - up in front of the Chief Constable. (Yes, I've
been there).
Yours Aye Andrew Sellon
|
|
sufficient of a case for it to go to trial, not that it was proved at
this stage. The petty Jury tried the actual case and decided if the
charge was true or not.
|
|
|
