|
Brown Moses posted:A jury of 9 women and 3 men has been sworn in. What's up with Private Eye this week?
|
# ? Oct 29, 2013 17:02 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 09:52 |
|
Brown Moses posted:The judge has also warned the jury not to look at this week's Private Eye, and to avoid social media. What in particular is in this week's Eye? Also I find it hilarious that they're not allowed to read something which will have been checked and double-checked by the Eye's libel specialists...
|
# ? Oct 29, 2013 17:02 |
|
It's not about libel, it'll be about ensuring a fair trial. People have gone to prison for Googling defendants in trials they were jurors on so it stands to reason that the judge will do his best to stop jurors reading outside stuff about the defendants. Same reason the Gawker piece is blocked in the UK.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2013 17:07 |
|
glitchkrieg posted:What in particular is in this week's Eye?
|
# ? Oct 29, 2013 17:10 |
|
The only source is Guido, so I wouldn't put too much faith in it yet, but these seems really odd: http://order-order.com/2013/10/29/exclusive-cops-trying-to-remove-private-eye-from-shops/
|
# ? Oct 29, 2013 17:11 |
|
So what are the odds of the jury being sequestered at some point then?
|
# ? Oct 29, 2013 17:15 |
|
Andy Impey posted:It's not about libel, it'll be about ensuring a fair trial. People have gone to prison for Googling defendants in trials they were jurors on so it stands to reason that the judge will do his best to stop jurors reading outside stuff about the defendants. Yeah, as a juror, you're supposed to make your decision based only on what was presented in court. Easiest way to do that is to avoid anything remotely related to the case.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2013 17:19 |
|
As far as I'm aware their only asking for copies of private Eye near the court to be taken off sale.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2013 17:24 |
|
Brown Moses posted:As far as I'm aware their only asking for copies of private Eye near the court to be taken off sale. Its at Southwark, right? I wont be able to pick up a copy of the Eye when I head into uni then.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2013 17:39 |
|
duz posted:Yeah, as a juror, you're supposed to make your decision based only on what was presented in court. Easiest way to do that is to avoid anything remotely related to the case. What if the current issue of Private Eye was presented in court?
|
# ? Oct 29, 2013 17:40 |
|
Today's newsquote:Phone-hacking judge: 'Not just defendants on trial, British justice is on trial' He's also instructed them to be careful when they use social media, not ban it all together.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2013 17:42 |
|
Private Eye must be pretty pleased to be the only press which is possibly prejudicial.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2013 18:40 |
|
Mr. Squishy posted:Private Eye must be pretty pleased to be the only press which is possibly prejudicial. Not to mention honest. I wonder where my new Eye has got to? My last copy was the Press Regulation Special.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2013 20:41 |
|
Another blog's coverage of today's events http://davidbanksmedialaw.wordpress.com/2013/10/29/phone-hacking-trial-day-2/
|
# ? Oct 29, 2013 22:28 |
|
A lot of the jury directions are the court covering their asses in case anything fucks up down the line with a juror. You don't want to get 3 months in and then have to declare a mistrial because a juror did something prejudicial to the case that could've been foreseen. If it happens and it's a juror's fault that's one thing. If it happens and it's the court staff or Saunders J's fault that's another thing altogether. With this many counsel you're looking at something like £20k+ (could be much more, this trial is pretty unique) a day in costs and you really don't want the MoJ on the hook for that. Necrothatcher fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Oct 29, 2013 |
# ? Oct 29, 2013 23:42 |
|
Great bit of court art
|
# ? Oct 29, 2013 23:45 |
|
Priscilla Coleman appears to be the courtroom artist, so follow her for the latest images. Blogs covering today's action David Banks Press Reform The prosecution's opening statement should be live-tweeted from about 2pm onwards. Feel free to TV-IV it.
|
# ? Oct 30, 2013 10:27 |
|
What's up with the poppies?
|
# ? Oct 30, 2013 11:27 |
|
Jeoh posted:What's up with the poppies? Remembrance Day is coming, and like Christmas, Easter and Halloween it creeps earlier and earlier into shops and on TV.
|
# ? Oct 30, 2013 11:31 |
|
Jeoh posted:What's up with the poppies? The most important thing in British media is to make it look like you care. Alternatively, the worst thing you can do is wear a white poppy, and show that you've given some thought to it (of a different kind).
|
# ? Oct 30, 2013 12:04 |
|
The Pressbof's (Press Standards Board of Finance) attempts to scupper the Royal Charter have just been thrown out by the judge.
|
# ? Oct 30, 2013 14:05 |
|
I've put together a Twitter list of journalists covering it at the Old Bailey.
|
# ? Oct 30, 2013 15:36 |
|
Brown Moses posted:I've put together a Twitter list of journalists covering it at the Old Bailey. e: based on a couple of tweets about the opening proceeding they seem proper hosed Wiggly Wayne DDS fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Oct 30, 2013 |
# ? Oct 30, 2013 15:41 |
|
Getting to the meat of the alleged cover up (various Twitter accounts)quote:Edis on Charge 7 "prosecuting say..... material police would have wanted were cleared out of Brooks' country home and taken to NI offices"
|
# ? Oct 30, 2013 16:03 |
|
Yeah, gotta say it's looking pretty bad for the defendants alreadyquote:BREAKING: Miskiw, Thurlbeck, Weatherup - News Editors have all pleaded guilty to count one
|
# ? Oct 30, 2013 16:10 |
|
Brown Moses posted:
I thought that the NotW and the police both acknowledged they had accessed her voicemail but it was the Guardian's claims that they had deleted messages (ostensibly to make room for any new ones to be left) that was disputed.
|
# ? Oct 30, 2013 16:21 |
|
Daveman23 posted:I thought that the NotW and the police both acknowledged they had accessed her voicemail but it was the Guardian's claims that they had deleted messages (ostensibly to make room for any new ones to be left) that was disputed. Some people insisted the Guardian made it all up, mainly idiots though.
|
# ? Oct 30, 2013 16:22 |
|
Brown Moses posted:Some people insisted the Guardian made it all up, mainly idiots though. Ah, there's no accounting for idiots.
|
# ? Oct 30, 2013 16:24 |
|
quote:Three ex-Murdoch journalists plead guilty to phone hacking
|
# ? Oct 30, 2013 16:26 |
|
And no-one in their right mind would believe that. So let us hope the jury has been properly screened.
|
# ? Oct 30, 2013 16:34 |
|
They're making the point now Glenn Mulcaire was paid £100,000 a year, and that would have had to have been authorised by the highest levels at the NotW.
|
# ? Oct 30, 2013 16:38 |
|
Brown Moses posted:Some people insisted the Guardian made it all up, mainly idiots though. I'm waiting for the hand wringing on the front pages tonight considering the people who insisted it was made up usually worked for Mr. Dacre and co. Should be hilarious reading. Also Mulcaire had recorded voicemails from convicted Au Pair Louise Woodward in his possession when he was arrested. The type of smoking gun seems to have been a shotgun it seems.
|
# ? Oct 30, 2013 17:04 |
|
The prosecution says they've recovered a lot of recorded voice-mails from Mulcaire as well, that doesn't look good for him or his employer.
|
# ? Oct 30, 2013 17:12 |
|
He seems to be using the argument of 'the editors had to know' not presenting evidance that they /did/ know. But it looks like Coulson is completely hosed, which is the best one due to him being hired by the PM. The others are just icing, sweet, sweet icing.
|
# ? Oct 30, 2013 17:17 |
|
I have no idea how the defence plans to counter this tidal wave of evidence, because it stretches deniability to a snapping point.
|
# ? Oct 30, 2013 17:21 |
|
Brown Moses posted:Getting to the meat of the alleged cover up (various Twitter accounts) Wow, yeah they're pretty much hosed. Destroying evidence usually means the judge will direct juries to think of the most damming things that could have been contained in that evidence for which ever side was in possession of them when they were destroyed, then consider it's true. Well that's what happens in the US anyway.
|
# ? Oct 30, 2013 17:21 |
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Wow, yeah they're pretty much hosed. Destroying evidence usually means the judge will direct juries to think of the most damming things that could have been contained in that evidence for which ever side was in possession of them when they were destroyed, then consider it's true. Well that's what happens in the US anyway. That has to be my favorite rule in American evidence. I don't think it's "the most damning things," though, but it's the most reasonable negative inference. So if it's, say, a case of embezzlement, if you burn your accountbooks so that the prosecution can't access them, the prosecution is allowed to present that as evidence that the accountbooks would have incriminated the defendant. Then again, I am an extraordinarily bad law student, so I could be talking straight out my arse.
|
# ? Oct 30, 2013 17:27 |
|
What's a Royal charter and what does this now mean? Are the press now forced to apologise for mistakes with the same level of prominence as the original story? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24746137 It seems the newspapers wanted to stop it so it's probably a good thing.
|
# ? Oct 30, 2013 19:39 |
|
This might answer your question, Royal charters: what are they and how do they work?. Steven Nott managed to get himself in trouble on Twitter after commenting on the guilt of one of the defendants on Twitter when he was at the Old Bailey yesterday quote:I've been issued with a contempt of court warning and would like to make it clear that EVERYONE is being watched for prejudicial tweets.
|
# ? Oct 30, 2013 21:34 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 09:52 |
|
ewe2 posted:I have no idea how the defence plans to counter this tidal wave of evidence, because it stretches deniability to a snapping point. Man, you should have watched the original leveson inquiry testimony. "I do not/can not recall (exactly)" was said so many times the participants might as well have had it on a tape recorder in their pocket so they didnt wear their vocal cords out.
|
# ? Oct 30, 2013 21:46 |