You be the judge (sentencing)

[anglolawyer]

We have reached closing submissions in the Maths teacher case:

A teacher accused of abducting a schoolgirl and taking her to France could be considered a "paedophile" who "groomed" the pupil, prosecutors said.

Jeremy Forrest, 30, of Chislehurst Road, Petts Wood, south east London, denies child abduction.

Earlier the jury was told that Mr Forrest would not be giving evidence.

...

Summing up the prosecution case, Richard Barton told the jury: "You do not have to decide whether he was a paedophile; you may consider, in the context of what he did, that is not an inappropriate label for him.

"It is about his desires to have that young sexual flesh, to satisfy his own carnal lusts."

He added: "It is interesting to note the woman he chose to marry is a very young-looking, petite woman with her own vulnerabilities.

"What is that Jeremy Forrest finds attractive about young-looking, vulnerable women?

"There is a word for it. It's called grooming - being caring, being kind, being close, gaining confidence, gaining the trust of that person and then you can do what you want to do with them."

Speaking directly to the defendant, Mr Barton asked: "How did you feel, Mr Forrest, that first time with that 14-year-old girl in the classroom in her school uniform, when you kissed her the first time?

"How was that in accordance with that trust that you have built up?"

...

Ronald Jaffa, defending, read a series of character references in which Mr Forrest was described as a "talented and inspirational" teacher who "cared for others" and who had spent his time in prison teaching other inmates.

His sister, Carrie Hanspaul, a mother of three daughters, said she believed his caring nature had got him into trouble.

"He never has a bad word to say about anyone and always strives to do whatever he can to help other people and care for them," she said.


Jeremy Forrest's marriage to Emily began to deteriorate less than a year after their wedding, the court heard
"Unfortunately I believe this has contributed to his recent actions.

"Jeremy has been in a very difficult relationship for the last six years but did not want to worry any of his family, especially our parents, with his problems.

"I believe he became more and more depressed."

Mr Forrest's uncle, John Forrest, a solicitor, said his nephew was "deeply upset" by the position in which he found himself and was "embarrassed and remorseful about the upset which he has caused to his friends and his family".

Benedict Beaumont, a former ICT teacher at Bishop Bell CofE School, described him as "one of the most gifted teachers that I have ever met".

Friend Dale Ives-Routleff, the best man at the defendant's wedding to his wife Emily, spoke of a visit at Christmas 2011.

"When pressed he effectively broke down and admitted he was very unhappy at home and described his home/married life as 'miserable, lonely and depressing'," he said.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Exactly this. The point isn't that the suspect faked a YouTube video, but that he deliberately faked the video to misdirect a police investigation.

I think the problem here is that I don't think anything can be legal evidence unless its entered as such in court. The truth value of a video, and the purported intent of the maker, would be irrelevant until and unless either side advanced it in court. If the defense did so, then the prosecution would be able to argue it's false, and open the possibility of perjury. Or the prosecution might enter the video themselves.... if they wanted to gamble they could convince a jury it was fake, but in that case why bother to introduce it at all? They presumably have a case already with evidence that isn't already a debate in itself. What the prosecution couldn't do, in MY court, is put the video into evidence for the defense, then argue against it.

As for pretrial investigation, there's a difference between planting fingerprints and a cop mistaking YouTube as a statement to the police.

 

[Ian Osborne]

I think the problem here is that I don't think anything can be legal evidence unless its entered as such in court.

I'm not sure you're right here. It's true that juries can only consider evidence presented to the court during a trial, but the police can deem anything evidence during an investigation. If you create misleading or false evidence, you've committed a serious crime.

 

[fuelair]

So if I were to purchase a car that happened to be the same make and model as the getaway car in a recent robbery, and a cop mistook it for the same car and wasted an afternoon questioning me, I'd be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice?

You have left no room for police error. Anybody doing anything --or merely existing!--could "slow down or sidetrack a police investigation". By your definition above, being the victim of a crime would be perverting the course of justice because the investigation of a previous crime gets delayed while the cops stop to take details of the new crime!

Addenda (thought obvious) 'done by or solicited to be done by agent of the perpetrator of the crime'.

 

[smartcooky]

So if I were to purchase a car that happened to be the same make and model as the getaway car in a recent robbery, and a cop mistook it for the same car and wasted an afternoon questioning me, I'd be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice?!

No, you still don't get it. You are treating it as an "absolute" when it isn't.

The Police interview people with similar model cars to a "getaway" car all the time. Those interviewees are not subsequently prosecuted for wasting police time.

What is required for "perverting the course of justice" is a deliberate and intentional effort on your part to misdirect the police in the course of their investigation, e.g. buying the car off the prime suspect (who is a friend/colleague/relative perhaps) and claiming it was in your possession in another city at the time of the robbery, thereby providing a false alibi for the prime suspect.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'm not sure you're right here. It's true that juries can only consider evidence presented to the court during a trial, but the police can deem anything evidence during an investigation. If you create misleading or false evidence, you've committed a serious crime.

Which they'd then have to prove in a trial. Which if I'm the judge would be hard going for them in this case, because I hold posting something on YouTube to be akin to publishing a book, not akin to making a statement to police.

That police are misled doesn't necessarily mean guilt on the part of anybody else--it might just be the police aren't being very smart in that instance.

If they hadn't found out the defendant made the YouTube video, would they have dropped the charges because it was "evidence" of innocence? They can't have it both ways--only considering it evidence when they think it points to guilt.

 

[TragicMonkey]

No, you still don't get it. You are treating it as an "absolute" when it isn't.

The Police interview people with similar model cars to a "getaway" car all the time. Those interviewees are not subsequently prosecuted for wasting police time.

What is required for "perverting the course of justice" is a deliberate and intentional effort on your part to misdirect the police in the course of their investigation, e.g. buying the car off the prime suspect (who is a friend/colleague/relative perhaps) and claiming it was in your possession in another city at the time of the robbery, thereby providing a false alibi for the prime suspect.

Fuelair's suggestion was framed as an "absolute"-- it did not say anything about requiring intent. Hence my original objection.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Why not ? Sex release a slew of hormon endorphin among them.

And yet we waste so much money on little pills. You are preaching to the choir, my friend.

 

[SezMe]

I found the prosecutions summary statement as posted in #81 to be disgusting.

He added: "It is interesting to note the woman he chose to marry is a very young-looking, petite woman with her own vulnerabilities.

It's not interesting at all. That he is attracted to a certain type of woman puts him in with just about every other male on the planet. That statement is idiotic.

"There is a word for it. It's called grooming - being caring, being kind, being close, gaining confidence, gaining the trust of that person and then you can do what you want to do with them."

Absolutely amazing. So now being a good husband apparently gives evidence that you are about to commit a crime.

 

[Ian Osborne]

That police are misled doesn't necessarily mean guilt on the part of anybody else--it might just be the police aren't being very smart in that instance.

Yes, but that's not the issue. It's whether someone deliberately mislead or attempted to mislead them that matters. That very much does mean guilt on the part of the person doing the misleading.

If they hadn't found out the defendant made the YouTube video, would they have dropped the charges because it was "evidence" of innocence?

Quite possibly. That was the intended outcome, and that's why making the video is an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Yes, but that's not the issue. It's whether someone deliberately mislead or attempted to mislead them that matters. That very much does mean guilt on the part of the person doing the misleading.

Seems like something it would be very difficult to prove in court. It's not like sending the cops an anonymous letter. It's more like publishing a book.

Quite possibly. That was the intended outcome, and that's why making the video is an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

I can't think much of police who base their investigations' conclusions on what they see on YouTube and how credible they think it is. "I know we have the fingerprints, the footprints, the DNA, and the confession, but I saw this thing on YouTube of a kitten ninja doing the murder and it was really convincing, so I let that guy go."

 

[Ian Osborne]

Seems like something it would be very difficult to prove in court. It's not like sending the cops an anonymous letter. It's more like publishing a book.

That's the prosecution's problem, and the person in question was successfully prosecuted here.

I can't think much of police who base their investigations' conclusions on what they see on YouTube and how credible they think it is. "I know we have the fingerprints, the footprints, the DNA, and the confession, but I saw this thing on YouTube of a kitten ninja doing the murder and it was really convincing, so I let that guy go."

As they caught the correct guy despite the false evidence, they clearly didn't base their conclusions on the YouTube video. And the video was of a vandal purporting to be the owner of the accused's tag, not a comedy kitten. Big difference.

ETA: After reading about the case on the web, it seems the YouTube video threw the police off the scent for a year.

 

[TragicMonkey]

That's the prosecution's problem, and the person in question was successfully prosecuted here.

Probably a defective judge. Wouldn't have happened in my court. I'd have instructed my backup dancers to jeer at the very notion.

As they caught the correct guy despite the false evidence, they clearly didn't base their conclusions on the YouTube video. And the video was of a vandal purporting to be the owner of the accused's tag, not a comedy kitten. Big difference.

Ah, yes, "ownership" of a "tag". I would think the video proved very effectively the one thing that matters--anybody can copy a tag. Which is yet another reason for the prosecution not to bring it up in court. I'd have instructed the jury to consider that possibility, if the defence missed it.

But then, if I were the judge, I'd be wondering the whole time about why they'd be pushing for a "perversion of justice" conviction at all. Surely that's more for criminal conspiracies, cover-ups by wrongdoing authorities, organized crime, and the like. As a judge I'd be suspicious the charge was preferred solely to harrass the defendant because let's face it, vandalism is hardly a serious crime. I'd suspect someone just wanted to pot the accused on something, anything, and was hurling charges at the wall hoping something would stick. And that sort of thing would piss me off, as a judge. So even if the jury did accept a complete pig's breakfast of a case and convict on that charge, I'd sentence him on that count to time already served, and see who comes out of the woodwork to appeal that. I didn't get to be a judge by not paying attention to politics.

 

[anglolawyer]

The BBC reports the guilty verdict. The link comes with footage of the now customary smug, badly spoken, barely literate police officer describing the 'complex' (sic) enquiry followed by the equally smug and sanctimonious crown prosecutor. You may need to be English to understand how this stuff brings me out in hives.

As the foreman of the jury announced the verdict, Forrest's victim put her head in her hands and burst out crying.

As the jury arrived back in court, Forrest turned to her and said: "I love you."

The girl said to the defendant: "I'm sorry" as he was taken to the cells.

 

[smartcooky]

ETA: After reading about the case on the web, it seems the YouTube video threw the police off the scent for a year.

And why wouldn't it? They believed what they saw because that is what the person who put up the video intended. Its not like it would have been an obvious fake video (kitten murdering human, basketball drop-kicked through hoop from 100 metres - nothing but net).

The person who put up the video intended to mislead the police and succeeded in doing so for twelve months. That is why it is perversion of the course of justice.

 

[kerikiwi]

The link comes with footage of the now customary smug, badly spoken, barely literate police officer describing the 'complex' (sic) enquiry .... You may need to be English to understand how this stuff brings me out in hives.

I fail to see any evidence of the police officer's being smug or badly spoken or barely literate.
Maybe it's not being English that is needed' but being something else.

 

[TragicMonkey]

And why wouldn't it? They believed what they saw because that is what the person who put up the video intended. Its not like it would have been an obvious fake video (kitten murdering human, basketball drop-kicked through hoop from 100 metres - nothing but net).

The person who put up the video intended to mislead the police and succeeded in doing so for twelve months. That is why it is perversion of the course of justice.

Do you want to tack on that same charge to every crime? Because if a criminal wears gloves or wipes his prints or creates a fake alibi, is he not intentionally attempting to deceive the police? By denying involvement, not confessing, pleading innocent, is that not an attempt to deceive the police? Isn't every crime that isn't immediately confessed to then an attempt to pervert the course of justice?

That's why this stinks of "made up charge" to me. Like sticking "disorderly conduct" on back of an armed robbery charge. True, but unnecessary. Unless you just want to rack up as many charges as possible.

 

[Ian Osborne]

If a criminal wears gloves or wipes his prints or creates a fake alibi, is he not intentionally attempting to deceive the police? By denying involvement, not confessing, pleading innocent, is that not an attempt to deceive the police? Isn't every crime that isn't immediately confessed to then an attempt to pervert the course of justice?

There's a difference between covering your tracks and creating a false trail. Wearing gloves or wiping prints isn't Conspiracy to Pervert, but creating a false alibi might well be.

That's why this stinks of "made up charge" to me. Like sticking "disorderly conduct" on back of an armed robbery charge. True, but unnecessary. Unless you just want to rack up as many charges as possible.

It seems like a separate crime to me. If it was ignored, where's the disincentive to create a false evidence trail?

 

[Darat]

I found the prosecutions summary statement as posted in #81 to be disgusting.


It's not interesting at all. That he is attracted to a certain type of woman puts him in with just about every other male on the planet. That statement is idiotic.


Absolutely amazing. So now being a good husband apparently gives evidence that you are about to commit a crime.

The second quote is about his behaviour towards the school girl, not his wife.

 

[TragicMonkey]

It seems like a separate crime to me. If it was ignored, where's the disincentive to create a false evidence trail?

But if it's not ignored, then every crime is two crimes: the original crime, then the crime of trying to get away with the first crime.