Trial or Not
Notifications OFF
Hi All,
I hope everyone is doing ok as can be and looking forward to the weekend, be it rain, sun, snow or wind!
I was wondering if anyone on here has/is going through a trial and had proceedings dropped by prosecution before the actual trial starts due to one thing or another such as evidence.
We're possibly going on to a trial but very undecided on which way to turn, do we do what solicitors advise or go on our own gut feeling s, HELP !!
xxx
I hope everyone is doing ok as can be and looking forward to the weekend, be it rain, sun, snow or wind!
I was wondering if anyone on here has/is going through a trial and had proceedings dropped by prosecution before the actual trial starts due to one thing or another such as evidence.
We're possibly going on to a trial but very undecided on which way to turn, do we do what solicitors advise or go on our own gut feeling s, HELP !!
xxx
My person went with what the solicitor recommended which was to plead guilty. He was told that if he went to trial and was then found guilty he would get a prison sentence.
It's such a difficult decision to make. Thinking of you and sending strength and love.
It's such a difficult decision to make. Thinking of you and sending strength and love.
It's important not to confuse evidence of what they did, with evidence for mitigation purposes.
Suppose somebody who is autistic downloads iioc. The courts have previously said, in most of these cases that have gone to trial, that being autistic doesn't mean the person cannot understand the difference between right and wrong.
So they were found guilty because they knew it was wrong, but because they were autistic, the judge can take that into account when sentencing and reduce the sentencing because of it.
If there was iioc on their devices and they knew it was there, they will be found guilty. Being autistic will not result in them getting a not guilty at trial, unless it was so severe that the person did not realise they were doing anything wrong and you would need to prove that to a jury, which is going to be difficult.
Suppose somebody who is autistic downloads iioc. The courts have previously said, in most of these cases that have gone to trial, that being autistic doesn't mean the person cannot understand the difference between right and wrong.
So they were found guilty because they knew it was wrong, but because they were autistic, the judge can take that into account when sentencing and reduce the sentencing because of it.
If there was iioc on their devices and they knew it was there, they will be found guilty. Being autistic will not result in them getting a not guilty at trial, unless it was so severe that the person did not realise they were doing anything wrong and you would need to prove that to a jury, which is going to be difficult.
Hi Edel,
My person fully understands right from wrong and he understands what he did, he's not using autism as an excuse for what he did, he's merely struggling and has struggled most of his life so now has some relief at the diagnosis.
He's been advised by a barrister/solicitor to plead not guilty to charges, not because he's "trying to get away with it" but because he knew he was chatting sexually and sent and received explicit photos but he didn't know the person at the other end was a child. He's pleading not guilty because he thought he was chatting to a grown adult female until she disclosed her age, at which point he blocked her.
I'm sorry if I come across in the wrong way but my person has struggled through nearly 3 years in this situation and numerous suicide attempts, he knows what he's done and fully understands the consequences, he was going to plead guilty until legal representation told him no, he's not guilty for believing this was an adult when it was actually a child .
We would both rather this be over but we're now waiting on next steps from the solicitor and placing our trust in him , what else can we do in this awful dilemma.
Xx
My person fully understands right from wrong and he understands what he did, he's not using autism as an excuse for what he did, he's merely struggling and has struggled most of his life so now has some relief at the diagnosis.
He's been advised by a barrister/solicitor to plead not guilty to charges, not because he's "trying to get away with it" but because he knew he was chatting sexually and sent and received explicit photos but he didn't know the person at the other end was a child. He's pleading not guilty because he thought he was chatting to a grown adult female until she disclosed her age, at which point he blocked her.
I'm sorry if I come across in the wrong way but my person has struggled through nearly 3 years in this situation and numerous suicide attempts, he knows what he's done and fully understands the consequences, he was going to plead guilty until legal representation told him no, he's not guilty for believing this was an adult when it was actually a child .
We would both rather this be over but we're now waiting on next steps from the solicitor and placing our trust in him , what else can we do in this awful dilemma.
Xx
Ocean,
Thanks for your kind words, my person is almost relieved at the autism diagnosis as it explains many situations during his life. He still has further assessments to face but at least he now has help.
Just hoping this awful situation will soon be over xx
Thanks for your kind words, my person is almost relieved at the autism diagnosis as it explains many situations during his life. He still has further assessments to face but at least he now has help.
Just hoping this awful situation will soon be over xx
Bettyboo
I don't for one moment, believe that people use their autism as an excuse. I was just trying to explain how the courts might take it into account.
The problem with all communication cases is that it depends on the exact words that were used in the conversation. The prosecution will have spotted something in there, which they think would have identified the person as underage. One example is them referencing being at school. They may not have said explicitly that they were a child, but they might have implied it. Other examples are the kind of language used. Young people have their own 'text speak', which might give away that they are younger than they say they are.
So if I were advising somebody on how to plead, I would want to read the entire conversation from start to finish and ask myself, what would I think if it were me? Are there clues there which might point to them being a child?
Then I would ask myself, what would a jury, who don't know my person and have never met him, think about it? Often the juries decision will turn on just a few key words in the conversation. Unlike you, the jury probably won't have very much knowledge of autism and they won't really understand how it affects your person.
I might also ask your solicitor to explain the basis of their defence. In other words, what are they going to say to the jury? Then put yourself in the juror's place and ask, would I be convinced by this?
I don't for one moment, believe that people use their autism as an excuse. I was just trying to explain how the courts might take it into account.
The problem with all communication cases is that it depends on the exact words that were used in the conversation. The prosecution will have spotted something in there, which they think would have identified the person as underage. One example is them referencing being at school. They may not have said explicitly that they were a child, but they might have implied it. Other examples are the kind of language used. Young people have their own 'text speak', which might give away that they are younger than they say they are.
So if I were advising somebody on how to plead, I would want to read the entire conversation from start to finish and ask myself, what would I think if it were me? Are there clues there which might point to them being a child?
Then I would ask myself, what would a jury, who don't know my person and have never met him, think about it? Often the juries decision will turn on just a few key words in the conversation. Unlike you, the jury probably won't have very much knowledge of autism and they won't really understand how it affects your person.
I might also ask your solicitor to explain the basis of their defence. In other words, what are they going to say to the jury? Then put yourself in the juror's place and ask, would I be convinced by this?