Now that I am retired having been many years a magistrate with a long awareness of the declining freedoms enjoyed by the ordinary citizen and a corresponding fear of the big brother state`s ever increasing encroachment on civil liberties I hope that my personal observations within these general parameters will be of interest to those with an open mind. Having been blogging with this title for many years against the rules of the Ministry of Justice my new found freedom should allow me to be less inhibited in these observations.

Comments are usually moderated. However, I do not accept any legal responsibility for the content of any comment. If any comment seems submitted just to advertise a website it will not be published.

Friday, 21 November 2014


Earlier this week head teacher James Bird was cleared of a historic allegation of sexual abuse.  The jury took all of  15 minutes to clear him.  There are obvious questions to be asked and the ramifications that will follow will be a matter for legal debate at the highest level no doubt. What I find particularly interesting is the comment from CPS quoted in the Times when a spokesman said it was important to distinguish between evidence a person had lied about allegations and a jury deciding evidence was not strong enough for a conviction.  Surely with remarks of that nature this is an argument for considering the Scottish verdict; not proven?


  1. only if every complaint / charge against public officials is logged a unproven and not swept under the carpet. it may go some way in preventing the police from murdering any more unarmed law abiding citizens or psudo civil servants raping pregnant women

  2. I've always regarded "Not Proven" as meaning "we think the defendant is guilty, but the evidence is insufficient for a conviction"

  3. And that is exactly why we shouldn't even think about incorporating it into English law. A "bastard verdict" as Sir Walter Scott aptly called it.