I was aware of how a "Plea Agreement" would happen... But I would have imagined that if a "Plea Agreement" was entered into then it wouldn't happen before a trial....
And if said "Plea Agreement" had been entered into.. then it wouldn't go to trial, but go before the judge after he has looked at any mitigating factors, or the defendant previous Good/Bad character.. Been involved in other criminal activities for instance ...
Then the judge would pass sentence ....
I do not understand how
5 months This "Plea" had been entered into... then not being accepted... and a trial date set....
Allowing for the world to know of said "Plea"..... had taken place....
I was under the impression that this "Plea" would happen at trial and not
5 months before a trial if it wasn't going to be accepted...
Leonora.... or anyone for that matter.... Can anyone give me an example of a defendant who has
"Pled Guilty To Manslaughter, months before trial... where it has NOT been accepted, and then go to trial.... where the jury already know that this "Guilty To manslaughter Plea was entered into Months prior???It seems irregular to me.... Like I said leonora... The jury shouldn't have known that information (IMO)... till after the trial... The
'Plea was basically "The Prosecutions Case".... without the
Plea there was NO Case!!
And putting Dr Vincent Tabak on the stand also seems ridiculous ... why did the Defence do that???
There was a basic outline of a story... that was it.... If the statement that Dr Vincent Tabak had signed ...had been read out to the jury ... like 20 other statements... There wouldn't have had anything to go on.....
But instead they have a Placid Dutchman... Sobbing and unable to answer over 80 questions... which in turn makes it appear as if he is being evasive and as some have said, only sobbing for himself ........ Which only Adds to the juries opinion of him.... (IMO)..
The Defences behaviour was appauling (IMO)... They did not help their client once ...(IMO)..
I'm trying to understand this....
If a defendant wishes to be sentenced on a basis which is not agreed, the prosecution advocate should invite the judge not to accept the defendant's version unless he or she gives evidence on oath to be tested in cross-examination. The Criminal Practice Direction [2013] EWCA Crim 1631 which came into force on 7 October 2013 states that in such circumstances the defence advocate should be prepared to call the defendant and, if the defendant is not willing to testify, subject to any explanation that may be given, the judge may draw such inferences as appear appropriate.
So according to this... It is
The Judge who doesn't accept the "Plea".... And therefore we have Dr Vincent Tabak on the stand explaining his version of events..... In the vain hope that he will get a reduced sentence...
It's like a game of Russian Roulette....
So why did "Ann Reddrop" Head of The Complex Case Unit... let everyone know that they were not accepting this "Plea"... when it was for the judge to decide, whether or not is was accepted!!!
So...if that information is how it unfolded... Dr Vincent Tabak.. had... No Explanation as to what happened to Joanna Yeates ... he only signed his statement on the 22nd September 2011.. I believe ...
Therefore I can see how it would have gone to trial in a way.... But the question is
WHY... If they had NO EVIDENCE... why enter the "Plea" in the first place ????
There would be NO real need to argue sentence on a "Manslaughter Plea" (IMO)... The admittance of Guilt should have reduced the sentence in the first place...
To me the above QUOTE, would only be of use to someone whom Pled Guilty to Murder .... Which of course Dr Vincent Tabak didn't....
Question... Did Clegg argue sentence ????? I don't think so...
Which also brings another question... If The Judge followed what it says in the QUOTE... Then why wasn't Manslaughter given to the Jury as an option????
I'll say this because... If it was all about length of possible sentence, therefore a jury should have heard any mitigating circumstances, the jury should have had an opportunity to make a decision on "ALL" evidence ...
But therefore... shouldn't the trial have been a "Manslaughter trial"???
I have just noticed this .....
Where the defendant pleads guilty but wants to be sentenced on a different basis to that disclosed by the prosecution case:
a) the defendant must set out that basis in writing, identifying what is in dispute;
b) the court may invite the parties to make representations about whether the dispute is material to sentence; and
c) if the court decides that it is a material dispute, the court will -
(i) invite such further representations or evidence as it may require;
(ii) decide the dispute.
So the defendant at First wants to be sentenced on a different basis.... And we come back to what is not agreed... Very interesting this quote....
Lets look at (a)....
a) the defendant must set out that basis in writing, identifying what is in dispute:
Dr Vincent Tabak didn't set anything out in writing.... He only signed the statement... in September 2011...
What is in writing that Dr Vincent Tabak disputed ????? The only thing he could dispute would be "The Porn"... And when did the Prosecution disclose that !!!!!
This is bizarre....
Ok.... If my understanding is correct....
Dr Vincent Tabak is at The Old Bailey... he enters the infamous "Guilty to Manslaughter Plea.. "... which should have been accepted ..But obviously wasn't ... But the argument is about length of sentence...
Then it''s the judges turn... To say he is not happy and this is going to trial.... Needing to argue out about other material... possibly the 'Porn"..
So where is it in writing from Dr Vincent Tabak that he disputed 'The Porn" before he arrived at the Old Bailey??
There is "NO" Other Material that could possibly be argued out.... The Prosecution presented
Nothing In the way of Evidence against Dr Vincent Tabak... So what would need to be argued out????
I have found something else ... that makes me question.... Dr Vincent Tabak's "Guilty to manslaughter Plea".... And
Everyone knowing about it before trialFrom
PART 3
CASE MANAGEMENT(4) In respect of each count in the indictment—
(a) if the defendant declines to enter a plea, the court must treat that as a not guilty plea
unless rule 25.11 applies (Defendant unfit to plead);
(b) if the defendant pleads not guilty to the offence charged by that count but guilty to
another offence of which the court could convict on that count—
(i) if the prosecutor and the court accept that plea, the court must treat the plea as one of
guilty of that other offence, but
(ii) otherwise, the court must treat the plea as one of not guilty;
So If my understanding is correct... Dr Vincent Tabak's Plea should have been seen as "NOT GUILTY" as The Prosecution didn't accept this ....
(i) if the prosecutor and the court accept that plea, the court must treat the plea as one of
guilty of that other offence, but
(ii) otherwise, the court must treat the plea as one of not guilty;
So why wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak seen as NOT GUILTY...
Therefore if this is how it is seen in LAW... Why did they
Tell The world that Dr Vincent Tabak had Pled Guilty To Manslaughter?? when if my understanding is correct... He is seen as "NOT GUILTY" !!!!
Meaning they prejudiced the jury before the trial.... (IMO)..
And if we go back to the judge wanting to hear the evidence to decide sentence... Then the Charge Dr Vincent Tabak should have been facing in court would have been The Charge of "Manslaughter" and NOT of "Murder" ....(IMO)..
But what do I know ... !!
EDIT..... I can only see the Judge wanting The Defendant to explain himself in court if he was going to decide on The Sentence for "Murder.".. Because i cannot see how he would need a jury when it came to mitigating circumstances for "Manslaughter"... That would be The Judges discretion.... (IMO)
They appear to have combined every rule in the book.... (IMO).. And used each part of said rules to Convict Dr Vincent Tabak.... (IMO)...
http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/2015/crim-proc-rules-2015-part-03.pdfhttp://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_-_general_principles/#a02