Roger Martin - trial

[AMP]

He was in front of a different Judge last August at Lewes Crown Court

[richardb]

Henson may have been on leave.

When these sorts of things happen, they tend to put all cases in front of one judge. That judge then has the fullest knowledge of the background, personalities etc.

[J.R.]

He was in front of a different Judge last August at Lewes Crown Court

Now that it appears Judge Henson WILL be hearing this case, there will be little chance of any wool being pulled over the eyes in my opinion.

[AMP]

I am very pleased to hear that.

Continuity is crucial.

[richardb]

If, for example, the names of Sillett and Cairncross come up then HHJ Henson will know how they fit in.

[DazedandConfused]

Is anyone able to attend the trial?

Unfortunately work, a young family and geography all prevent me from doing so.

[richardb]

I am going to see if I can get there.

Depends on the diary. Plus the fact it is a 600 mile round trip.

[richardb]

Sort of.

I am afraid that the cynic in me always thinks that judges sit there thinking: "you mean he hadn't been caught since..."

An absence of convictions does not mean that a person has not been criminally active. In many cases they just haven't been caught and convicted.

[DazedandConfused]

I am going to see if I can get there.

Depends on the diary. Plus the fact it is a 600 mile round trip.

That’s dedication!

[AMP]

Sort of.

I am afraid that the cynic in me always thinks that judges sit there thinking: "you mean he hadn't been caught since..."

An absence of convictions does not mean that a person has not been criminally active. In many cases they just haven't been caught and convicted.

The context is Webb's carefully worded mitigation at sentencing:

"There have been no previous convictions recorded against him since leaving the school in 1984.”

Why not just say " he has not offended since resigning from CH in 1984" or is that not considered a statement of fact and not permissible in mitigation?

Thanks for explanation

[richardb]

There is tendency to phrase it that way precisely because it is impossible to know if a person has committed an offence in the meantime.

I think its just the cautious way lawyers have to speak.

[MrEd]

There is tendency to phrase it that way precisely because it is impossible to know if a person has committed an offence in the meantime.

I think its just the cautious way lawyers have to speak.

Pretty much, but the fact of a lack of convictions is 'safe ground' for a lawyer defending, and it is relevant information for the judge. A judge sentencing has to follow guidelines, (these days tramlines almost) and the defence will push for the lowest sentence possible at this point. The judge is looking more or less at placing the offence on a chart, and seeing where the offences lie on the chart, and adding in factors such as age, risk of re-offending, remorse, guilty plea, position of trust and so on, as well as previous relevant convictions, if any. It is almost a detached, robotic process for the judge, which can (probably fairly) be seen as almost callous in the detachment from the victim or the perpetrator.

Coming back to the words, "There have been no previous convictions recorded against him since leaving the school in 1984", that won't be disputed, barring some whopping error by the police/CPS in case preparation and checking the records. Whereas saying "X has not offended since (date)" could be, even inadvertently misleading the Court, as for all the Brief knows, he might have been an unindicted, untraced accomplice of Fred West or the missing Lord Lucan, and in the judge's mind would be a proposition as to fact unsupported by evidence but also irrelevant to the judge's deliberations. The judge can only go on what is proved to the Court, or is admissible (e.g a court record), or subject to judicial notice, e.g. that Thursday is the day immediately after Wednesday, or that bears perform certain functions in the woods.

[J.R.]

CAN I JUST REMIND MEMBERS AND POSTERS THAT THIS TRIAL IS DUE TO START AT HOVE THREE WEEKS TODAY ON THE 24TH. JUNE, ALL BEING WELL.

Please think before making posts that could be prejudicial to the hearing.

Many people view this site just as guests.

Thank you.

[richardb]

If anyone is thinking of going, it has now moved and will start on Wednesday 26 June.

[jtaylor]

I'm going to lock this topic for now - will re-open it after the trial. If you have anything to add to it for information for those attending, or any other factual public updates, please PM them to me, RichardB or J.R. and we can add to the topic whilst it's locked.