I can see both sides of the argument but it’s appears that

The psychologists and other professionals no longer deem him a risk to the public, but the judges are saying that had they been allowed to question him about and see information about alleged offences that he’s not been convicted of then they may have concluded he’s lying. It seems a very grey area because if you conclude he’s lying on that basis you are still effectively saying he’s guilty of those offences when he’s not been convicted.

It certainly raises some interesting legal issues (unless of course you are not sad like me and interested in this stuff).

The CPS should really have just charged him with the extra offences, they’ve had 10 years to do so.

Posted By: Jim on March 28th 2018 at 19:07:29

Message Thread

FAO Legal Wrathers - Interested in your views on the Worboys JR verdict (General Chat) - Jim, Mar 28, 15:17:50
- Hanging is too good for him (n/m) (General Chat) - Jumbo1, Mar 28, 19:50:52
- Because you are not looking at the same threshold for conviction. (General Chat) - finkleton, Mar 28, 15:58:12
  - But surely you are effectively convicting him of all the (General Chat) - Jim, Mar 28, 18:22:38
    - I can see what you mean but it's seen like this- (General Chat) - finkleton, Mar 28, 19:00:04
      - I can see both sides of the argument but it’s appears that (General Chat) - Jim, Mar 28, 19:07:29
        
        Yes it should have been sorted at the time to avoid this. They probably thought (General Chat) - finkleton, Mar 28, 19:23:19
- “judges "finding a way" to get the outcome they plainly thought was right” (General Chat) - Old Git, Mar 28, 15:51:55
- Using my legal expertise (General Chat) - SCC 28, Mar 28, 15:37:52

Reply to Message

In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.

If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.