The ulster rugby trial

[Frank_The_Tank]

Always seems grossly unfair that you can be found not guilty and still taken to the cleaners.

Being found not guilty is not the same as being found innocent.

Nonetheless I still think it's unfair.  Put your prejudice aside for one moment f you can.  So you think a genuinely innocent person in the same scenario should be out of pocket hundreds of thousands of pounds?

I believe you can re-claim legal costs if acquitted - relevant paragraph about half way down - this mentions even if you were turned down for Legal Aid.  This is probably UK - pretty sure NI would be the same - perhaps some of the guys in the profession will know for 100% if this is accurate

https://factuk.org/how-to-claim-court-expenses-and-legal-costs-if-you-are-aquitted/

[gallsman]

Always seems grossly unfair that you can be found not guilty and still taken to the cleaners.

Being found not guilty is not the same as being found innocent.

A person who is acquitted of a crime is now not innocent? In who's eyes? Syferus'?

He's correct. How many times does this have to be repeated on this thread and this forum?!

Jackson, or indeed all four of them, may be 100% innocent. The "not guilty" verdict does not, however, declare them innocent. It means they haven't been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I accept that but a civilised society has to accept the rule of law?

Are we just to disregard the whole trial because of a few snippets of information gleaned in 240 character bursts and decide these lads are guilty anyway because it sounds like it? One thing they are guilty of is being complete assholes but alas this is not a crime!!

Where did I suggest any of that? I pointed out that Syferus, twat that he is, posted a factually correct statement.

It's not my fault that the board and thread are full of numpties incapable of (or worse, disinterested in) understanding how the law actually works. The significance of a verdict and what it actually means is a good place for people to start rather than ranting and raving.

[brokencrossbar1]

Always seems grossly unfair that you can be found not guilty and still taken to the cleaners.

Being found not guilty is not the same as being found innocent.

Of Jesus .... quit man, just quit.

For someone in the profession it's pretty mind blogging that you'd even try to pull someone up on that of all things. You can choose to believe this verdict completely excuses all evidence to the contrary, but that is not what the verdict does in any shape or form.

One of the singular, most basic concepts of the criminal justice system is that the person is deemed innocent until they are proven guilty. All the available evidence was adjudicated on and the were not found guilty therefore they continue to be innocent in the eyes of the law and that is that. You have an agend here and your agenda has been blown out of the water. 11 people who have sat and listened to all the evidence, all the witness statements, all forensics and all the directions by the judge who knows better than everyone on here, and these 11 people in less than 4 hours categorically and unanimously found these 4 men not guilty. That's the end of that and no matter how you'd like to twist and turn this and use semantics they are innocent. End. Of. Story

[HiMucker]

Always seems grossly unfair that you can be found not guilty and still taken to the cleaners.

Being found not guilty is not the same as being found innocent.

Nonetheless I still think it's unfair.  Put your prejudice aside for one moment f you can.  So you think a genuinely innocent person in the same scenario should be out of pocket hundreds of thousands of pounds?

I believe you can re-claim legal costs if acquitted - relevant paragraph about half way down - this mentions even if you were turned down for Legal Aid.  This is probably UK - pretty sure NI would be the same - perhaps some of the guys in the profession will know for 100% if this is accurate

https://factuk.org/how-to-claim-court-expenses-and-legal-costs-if-you-are-aquitted/

Cheers for that Frank

[brokencrossbar1]

Always seems grossly unfair that you can be found not guilty and still taken to the cleaners.

Being found not guilty is not the same as being found innocent.

Nonetheless I still think it's unfair.  Put your prejudice aside for one moment f you can.  So you think a genuinely innocent person in the same scenario should be out of pocket hundreds of thousands of pounds?

I believe you can re-claim legal costs if acquitted - relevant paragraph about half way down - this mentions even if you were turned down for Legal Aid.  This is probably UK - pretty sure NI would be the same - perhaps some of the guys in the profession will know for 100% if this is accurate

https://factuk.org/how-to-claim-court-expenses-and-legal-costs-if-you-are-aquitted/

Cheers for that Frank

I think that may only relate to English cases but I'm open to correction.

[Frank_The_Tank]

Always seems grossly unfair that you can be found not guilty and still taken to the cleaners.

Being found not guilty is not the same as being found innocent.

Nonetheless I still think it's unfair.  Put your prejudice aside for one moment f you can.  So you think a genuinely innocent person in the same scenario should be out of pocket hundreds of thousands of pounds?

I believe you can re-claim legal costs if acquitted - relevant paragraph about half way down - this mentions even if you were turned down for Legal Aid.  This is probably UK - pretty sure NI would be the same - perhaps some of the guys in the profession will know for 100% if this is accurate

https://factuk.org/how-to-claim-court-expenses-and-legal-costs-if-you-are-aquitted/

Cheers for that Frank

Could be wrong though - maybe bcb1 or david could clarify?

[AZOffaly]

Always seems grossly unfair that you can be found not guilty and still taken to the cleaners.

Being found not guilty is not the same as being found innocent.

A person who is acquitted of a crime is now not innocent? In who's eyes? Syferus'?

He's correct. How many times does this have to be repeated on this thread and this forum?!

Jackson, or indeed all four of them, may be 100% innocent. The "not guilty" verdict does not, however, declare them innocent. It means they haven't been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I accept that but a civilised society has to accept the rule of law?

Are we just to disregard the whole trial because of a few snippets of information gleaned in 240 character bursts and decide these lads are guilty anyway because it sounds like it? One thing they are guilty of is being complete assholes but alas this is not a crime!!

Where did I suggest any of that? I pointed out that Syferus, twat that he is, posted a factually correct statement.

It's not my fault that the board and thread are full of numpties incapable of (or worse, disinterested in) understanding how the law actually works. The significance of a verdict and what it actually means is a good place for people to start rather than ranting and raving.

Accept all that, but is the basic premise Innocent until Proven Guilty. If you are not proven guilty, you are, in fact, innocent in the eyes of the law.

Edit: BCB beat me to it.

[Therealdonald]

Always seems grossly unfair that you can be found not guilty and still taken to the cleaners.

Being found not guilty is not the same as being found innocent.

A person who is acquitted of a crime is now not innocent? In who's eyes? Syferus'?

He's correct. How many times does this have to be repeated on this thread and this forum?!

Jackson, or indeed all four of them, may be 100% innocent. The "not guilty" verdict does not, however, declare them innocent. It means they haven't been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I accept that but a civilised society has to accept the rule of law?

Are we just to disregard the whole trial because of a few snippets of information gleaned in 240 character bursts and decide these lads are guilty anyway because it sounds like it? One thing they are guilty of is being complete assholes but alas this is not a crime!!

Where did I suggest any of that? I pointed out that Syferus, twat that he is, posted a factually correct statement.

It's not my fault that the board and thread are full of numpties incapable of (or worse, disinterested in) understanding how the law actually works. The significance of a verdict and what it actually means is a good place for people to start rather than ranting and raving.

That's completely balls. Those involved have been found not guilty/innocent. Whether or not YOU think they are innocent is entirely irrelevant. Just get over yourselves boys. Evidence pointed to the fact they weren't guilty, jury found them as such. Move on.

[Rossfan]

Sufferus is upset because the Jury stupidly went on the evidence presented in Court rather than doing what he wanted.
He really is an embarrassment to our County and needs to come out of his own arrogant arsehole and stop polluting GAABOARD with his non stop drivel.

[gallsman]

It's not complete balls, it's indisputable fact. The four of them may be innocent but the court has not found them innocent. The court had found them not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore they are entitled to continue to be presumed innocent.

AZ, we've been through this before. These subtleties are important.

[Milltown Row2]

#ibelievetheyarenotguilty

[AZOffaly]

It's not complete balls, it's indisputable fact. The four of them may be innocent but the court has not found them innocent. The court had found them not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore they are entitled to continue to be presumed innocent.

AZ, we've been through this before. These subtleties are important.

I understand the nuance, but to all intents and purposes, they are presumed innocent (as you put it) in the eyes of the law. I'm not sure of your profession gallsman, so apologies if I'm being facetious, but I would accept the word of people who work in this area.

[Hound]

Always seems grossly unfair that you can be found not guilty and still taken to the cleaners.

Being found not guilty is not the same as being found innocent.

Nonetheless I still think it's unfair.  Put your prejudice aside for one moment f you can.  So you think a genuinely innocent person in the same scenario should be out of pocket hundreds of thousands of pounds?

I believe you can re-claim legal costs if acquitted - relevant paragraph about half way down - this mentions even if you were turned down for Legal Aid.  This is probably UK - pretty sure NI would be the same - perhaps some of the guys in the profession will know for 100% if this is accurate

https://factuk.org/how-to-claim-court-expenses-and-legal-costs-if-you-are-aquitted/

Lawyerfriend told me PJ got no legal aid and has now applied for his costs.

[Syferus]

Sufferus is upset because the Jury stupidly went on the evidence presented in Court rather than doing what he wanted.
He really is an embarrassment to our County and needs to come out of his own arrogant arsehole and stop polluting GAABOARD with his non stop drivel.

Please leave this one to the adults, Rossfan. Embarrassing as usual.

[gallsman]

It's not complete balls, it's indisputable fact. The four of them may be innocent but the court has not found them innocent. The court had found them not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore they are entitled to continue to be presumed innocent.

AZ, we've been through this before. These subtleties are important.

I understand the nuance, but to all intents and purposes, they are presumed innocent (as you put it) in the eyes of the law. I'm not sure of your profession gallsman, so apologies if I'm being facetious, but I would accept the word of people who work in this area.

And that nuance is important, as I'm sure BCB would agree.