"Cycling Mikey" loses court case.

[ClichéGuevara]

Nope, because you have nothing to be guilty of. If you are tried at court you can be found Not Guilty, but you are not proven innocent.
For example, lets say you are found not guilty of murder, but in 5 years time crucial new DNA evidence is found suggesting beyond a doubt that you are the murderer. You can then be retried provided the appeal Court allows it. You were never innocent. Just not proven guilty.

If you want to understand this further @barristersecret has something to say about it in her rather excellent books about the law.

Nope. The cornerstone of UK Law is the presumption of innocence.

I guess people could be confusing public opinion with the legal status.

 

[BoldonLad]

I'm sure he has 'pissed off' some motorists who've been caught but if they then transfer that to other cyclists they've only got their own prejudices to blame and are probably of the 'make 'em have number plates and insurance' brigade.

Possibly true, but, how does that help the "innocent" cyclist who is on the receiving end of the transferred rage?

 

[matticus]

Possibly true, but, how does that help the "innocent" cyclist who is on the receiving end of the transferred rage?

Speaking as an innocent cyclist, I don't give a monkeys. Angry drivers should be prosecuted if they break the law; locked up if they are a danger to the general public.
Simple.

 

[BoldonLad]

Speaking as an innocent cyclist, I don't give a monkeys. Angry drivers should be prosecuted if they break the law; locked up if they are a danger to the general public.
Simple.

Agreed, but, they have to be caught, and prosecuted first.

 

[steveindenmark]

If you are found not guilty, you are acquitted of the crime. Nobody pronounces you innocent.

But you are presumed to be innocent under the law. You cannot be say

But in English law, those are different things. ”Not guilty” is not the same as “innocent”. It just means there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. There are all sorts of ways that a person might have done what they are being accused of but found not guilty.

Yes but Innocent does not come up in a court. But not guilty does. The defence has to prove nothing. The prosecution failed to prove their case here . Whether he is innocent or not is immaterial. He is not guilty. He may be as guilty as sin. But the defence has to prove it.

 

[icowden]

In English Law, if you are found not guilty, legally speaking you are innocent. There is no legal grey area as, with a few exceptions, the general under pinning premise is 'innocent until proven guilty'. Scotland has not proven, which is more in line with what you're saying.

In English law you are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. This is a binary logic essential to justice. However if you are found not guilty, it does not mean that you are therefore meaningfully completely innocent. It just means that your guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

In English law you are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. This is a binary logic essential to justice. However if you are found not guilty, it does not mean that you are therefore meaningfully completely innocent. It just means that your guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Okay, have it your way, but only for you personally. You are guilty of something as you've not proven your innocence.

I'll stick to being innocent as the law of this land determined.

 

[DaveReading]

In English law you are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty.

However if you are found not guilty, it does not mean that you are therefore meaningfully completely innocent. It just means that your guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Those two statements are contradictory.

If you are found not guilty in court, then the presumption of innocence that applied before your trial continues to do so.

Unless you are one of the "no smoke without fire" lot.

 

[icowden]

Those two statements are contradictory.

They aren't. One is a binary premise.
The other statement is the real world implication of being charged with an offence.

You cannot be proven innocent.

 

[DaveReading]

They aren't. One is a binary premise.
The other statement is the real world implication of being charged with an offence.

You cannot be proven innocent.

Indeed you can't. But that applies equally before and after a trial, if the trial results in a "not guilty" verdict.

In those circumstances, you are still presumed to be innocent. Qualifying that presumption with weasel words like "completely" and "meaningfully" is, well, meaningless.

 

[Deleted User]

You cannot be proven innocent.

You don't need to be once you haven't been found guilty.

This really is a pathetic argument!

 

[matticus]

Agreed, but, they have to be caught, and prosecuted first.

This is what Mikey is helping happen. Seems ok to me ...

 

[BoldonLad]

This is what Mikey is helping happen. Seems ok to me ...

Me too, I didn’t say otherwise, but, I don’t see the need to confront people. Submit the footage, allow the police to their job.

 

[icowden]

You don't need to be once you haven't been found guilty.
This really is a pathetic argument!

Actually in many cases the plaintiff wishes for just that. There is a very famous set of civil cases brought in the USA regarding a chap called Jeffrey Epstein. The 2006 criminal case ended with a non-prosecution agreement. Similarly Giuffre was unable to bring a criminal charge against Prince Andrew, but brought a civil suit instead which was settled.

So by your logic Andrew is entirely innocent of having raped Virginia Giuffre when she was 17 in Epstein's mansion for cash solely because there has been insufficient evidence to bring a criminal case, yet he paid Giuffre 12 million pounds to go away, which we all know is the action of an entirely innocent wealthy man.

Again, I would exhort you to read the Secret Barrister where you will discover that guilt and innocence is not as simple as you would like it to be. How about Dennis who walked into a police station to hand over kitchen knives whilst having a mental health crisis where he thought he would kill his flatmate? Yes, he was prosecuted for possessing a bladed weapon and making threats to kill. Guilty as hell!

Or how about the story of Rob McCulloch a man with multiple convictions for violence against women who groomed a 14 year old girl, gave her heroin then regularly beat and abused her until she was 22 and beaten so badly she was rescued by a taxi driver and taken to hospital where she told the Police about her life. Unfortunately the CPS failed to provide the police notebook or the medical records in evidence. The Judge therefore dismissed the charges. good old Rob! Completely innocent and free to brutally beat more young women!

Or how about Laura who stole £20,000 from an elderly man but got away with it because the Police forgot at *any* stage to ask whether he had given her permission to take the money.

Practised criminals know that, even if the evidence against them appears strong, there is always the chance that the prosecution case will spin off the rails en route to trial and smash open an escape tunnel. One of the reasons that many defendants plead guilty only on the day of trial is that they will bide their time, hopeful that a prosecution error or a key witness losing their resolve – a crushingly prevalent problem in allegations of domestic violence – will free them at the last.

Barrister, The Secret. The Secret Barrister: Stories of the Law and How It's Broken (p. 128). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.

 

[matticus]

The Court of Public Opinion.

Sounds good to me!