As an active Justice of the Peace I was
asked, as are many others, to consider sitting in the family court. I rejected the approaches on the basis that I
preferred to sit in the judgement of adults who might or might not have
committed criminal acts. I preferred to exercise my limited abilities where any
error on my part would be balanced by the views of two colleagues and failing
that by a judge and two colleagues in crown court. Thinking in a similar format
I have occasionally pondered how a split bench of three justices could deliver
a verdict of guilty beyond reasonable doubt or to use the recognised parlance;
proved beyond reasonable doubt. But that`s a post for another time. And that
leads me to consider the details published this morning of the verdict last
year at Liverpool Crown Court of Martin Thomas who was found not guilty of grievous bodily harm with intent against his
baby daughter. He was named this week by
Mr Justice Peter Jackson at the family division of the High Court as indeed being
responsible for the baby`s injuries. Susan Jacklin QC, chairwoman of the Family Law Bar Association
was quoted in comments on the original verdict, 'The jury did not say that he
did not do it — they said: “We are not satisfied he did it on the burden of the
proof”.’ In other words the jury found
the case against him not proven and
this is not the first and won`t be the last time such verdicts leave unanswered
questions.
Game set and match for the Scottish
verdict!
No comments:
Post a Comment