Read the examples in this article and it might clear things up - https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk/is-it-ever-worth-pleading-guilty/
Basis of Plea Example 1
Stephen Holmes is charged with Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm. The prosecution case is that, following a minor disagreement in the pub, the victim was punched twice in the face, then fell to the ground and was kicked three or four times in the head. The victim sustained a broken nose and facial bruising.
Stephen accepts punching the victim and causing the injuries, but denies that the victim fell over and denies that he kicked the victim to the head. He accepts he is guilty of the offence (by punching twice in the face and causing injury) and sets out his version of events on a ‘Basis of Plea’ document which is handed to the prosecution.
The prosecution do not accept this version of events. Stephen Holmes pleads guilty and the prosecution hand up the Basis of Plea to the judge. The judge takes the view that, since kicking to the head is a serious aggravating factor of an assault, there would be a material difference in the sentence passed on each different basis. For this reason the judge adjourns the case for a Newton Hearing for the prosecution to prove its version against the defendant.
So example 1 appears to be the closest..... But........ Therefore The Prosecution should have a Basis of Plea.... If again, I am on the correct track....
So if no Basis of Plea is entered into, then a trial will take place..... But then why do we know before hand that the defendant has plead guilty to manslaughter???
Why are we told day in and day out that the defendant plead guilty to manslaughter..... Why do we know via the court case about contempt in July 2011 , that the defendant is guilty!!
And why did Clegg, put him on the stand???
Everyone including myself early on thought that some of the theories leonora put forward were way off base... But I understand completely where he is coming from....
The idea that it wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak who made the plea via the link from Long Lartin, doesn't really seem that far fetched....
I have a problem, with the fact that we all already know that Dr Vincent Tabak has plead guilty to manslaughter.... not only that The defence know this.... Either you have an acceptance of the Manslaughter plea, or a Newton hearing by the judge...
How can a defendant who is known by the public to have admitted to manslaughter then take the stand and tell everyone how he did it????
I keep saying what happened to the presumption of Innocence?? The presumption of Innocence you have when you face a jury??
You can't and shouldn't face a jury....
Guilty, until proven guiltier!!If I am correct in my understand of my post the other day ,where i questioned why Clegg put him on the stand, then Clegg knowing he had admitted to killing her shouldn't have had him on the stand.....
Sorry Caroline... I must be as thick as two short planks.... I thought the presumption of Innocence was key....
As i look it appears that the old addage of The Presumption of Innocence has been removed.... But had it been removed when Dr Vincent Tabak faced trial??
Whats wrong with this country???
Red-faced Ministry of Justice (MoJ) officials have been forced to deny claims that they had dismantled a centuries-old cornerstone of British law in advice that the ministry gave to people facing criminal trials.
The principle in question is the presumption of a person’s innocence until proved guilty, a right whose origins can be traced back to Magna Carta, which has its 800th anniversary this year.
In an embarrassing turn of events, the department hastily took down its new “easy read” guide, which explains to people with learning difficulties what they can expect if they are accused of a crime and say they are not guilty.But as the legal blogger Jack of Kent explained: “The MoJ tells defendants that they have to prove they are innocent. This is a reversal of the actual burden of proof – it is, of course, for the prosecution to prove to the court a defendant is guilty.”
So we have Dr Vincent Tabak telling the court he did it with no supporting evidence, we have Dr Vincent Tabak solving a crime on his own, by admitting to said crime......
What about the supporting evidence.... What about a jury being prejudiced.... This makes no ****ing sense...
It's so frustrating.....
So example:....
You could badger a defendant.... threaten a defendant.... threaten a defendants family, say deportation.... anything.... not Dr Vincent Tabak persay... anyone.... You could use every trick in the book that the public may not be aware of, and get a man/woman to admit to something they did not do, and get them then to stand up in a court of law and tell a jury that they are guilty, before a jury proves them even guiltier!!!
Them then fearing for the consequences if they do not do this, hoping that they might just get a shorter sentence for something they did not do in a bid to protect themselves or their family....
So have I got that right.....
Dr Vincent Tabak could be a fantasist for all anyone knows..... I'll keep saying it.... I do not believe he is guilty.... give me proper evidence to support that he did it and I may change my mind....
This case is full on freaky....
ok... I'll let most be happy with what they believe is right in this case.... That they got the right man..... That they are happy that it was decided in July 2011 that Dr Vincent Tabak did indeed kill Joanna Yeates... Before he went to trial.... before he took the stand and told his version of events.... Before he could retract, said plea...
Lets rejoice on the Great British judicial system, that doesn't give a shit about who's in court.... Nar... lets not bother with who's in the dock....
I know..... why don't we , keep said defendant in custody, without seeing anyone for weeks... keep them in custody, without applying for bail... take them to court several times, without still applying for bail, whilst staying silent on the matter... get everyone to sign a statement of guilt, then keep them on remand until they plead guilty to a lesser charge, then give them a full trial, where they start off as guilty, they then take the stand to tell the jury how they did it and then let a jury decide just how guilty they think said defendant is.....
My goodness.... you save such a lot of time.... and stop the pesky public asking questions they shouldn't ask....
I am speechless!!!
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/feb/01/presumed-guilty-ministry-justice-axes-criminal-trial-advice
