The judge can go against the jury? Doesn't that defeat the point of trial by jury in the first place?
And how can she be not guilty given we have photographs of her?
I wish law was simpler! [img]tongue.gif[/img]
Oh, and thanks for your insights here Timber, I'm a complete layman when it comes to law [img]smile.gif[/img]
Edit:
This
site has more info on the circumstances.
I know see the judges reason for stopping the trial, but is England being refused her guilty plea
just on the testimony of Gramer? What if he's lying? Isn't it just her version against his?
And even if somehow she didn't realise it was wrong (presumably she's socially undeveloped or something) surely the evidence is incontrovertible - she committed those crimes. Motive shouldn't affect whether a person is guilty or not (although I do accept a differing of sentences) IMO...
[ 05-04-2005, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]