- This topic has 8 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
To say I enjoyed today’s episode with the banter and final conversation between Ian & Rob is the understatement of the year!
I sat in Whole Foods where I was listening on my work break, & punched the air several times yelling YES! YES! YES! (under my breath of course).
This may yet be cause for me to call in for the first time, so taken was I by Ian’s truly awesome calm & nonchalance in the face of the Dark Lord. I have never heard Rob so helpless when trying so hard to manipulate someone, it was outrageously satisfying. It may well be the best conversation I’ve ever heard on TA in my 20 years of listening.
Loved it. Fabulous.
PS Roifield: You’ve been spammed in Russian mate! Think your robot took a day off.
Rob has really shown himself to be a homophobe as well as a general d*ck.
“Well, a criminal court is no place for the weak or faint hearted, are you sure you’re man enough to do it?”.
I seem to recall Rob saying on other occasions Ian wasn’t a ‘real man’.
Ian disproved this theory, took the bull by the horns and made Rob look like a spoilt brat, who has been getting his way for far too long, only to now be denied that satisfaction of having another dolly in his collection of controlled / manipulated people.
The end is nigh.Helen still has not explicitly stated her defence to her own representative (I’m not calling Anna a “barrister” out of respect to my professional colleagues – she’s just an inaccurate composite character/caricature). All she’s done so far is say Rob is not the nice person everyone thinks he is but she hasn’t said what he did that particular evening and why she reacted the way she did.
This is frustrating to me because Anna hasn’t got a case to put to Rob. It’s not enough to attack his character.
Helen appears to be in need of a psychiatric assessment (to establish her frame of mind now much less to establish whether it can be said that at the material time she was already suffering from prolonged psychological abuse) and in my view, I wouldn’t want her to give evidence. Even though she’s the defendant she doesn’t have to.
I wonder if the idea is to allow her to be convicted and then challenge the conviction on appeal by saying the trial was unfair because she should have had an assessment …
Anyway, as a lot of people have predicted, Rob may well “hoist himself on his own petard”. Even though Helen is a rubbish defendant with no apparent defence, Rob could turn out to be an appalling witness for the prosecution. I’ve come across his sort before who try to go “toe-to-toe” with Counsel when they’re being cross-examined. It doesn’t end well most of the time, especially when it’s an arrogant, “Alpha male” trying to assert himself against female Counsel.
And Rob is quite right to say that a criminal court is no place for the faint hearted. Under the pressure and intense scrutiny of close questioning, a man like him does have a tendency to reveal his true self through his language. I’d be surprised if he can keep a lid on his arrogance, misogyny and homophobia. The mask will slip, I’m sure. If he blows up completely, that’s good news for Helen. But the burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that she didn’t act in self-defence. If she doesn’t find a way to articulate what she was feeling and what she had gone through, no one in the jury stands a chance of understanding why she did what she did. At the moment if all she’s going to do in the witness box is say she doesn’t know what happened or can’t explain or can’t remember, she’s likely to be convicted and the prosecution closing speeches will paint her as a dangerous and unstable woman who lost control for no apparent reason.
The other problem about that, evidentially and procedurally for me is that she’s leaving it all too late. Anna needs to know what Helen says happened that night so she can put the case to Rob directly when she cross examines him. She also needs to know about the physical abuse as well as the coercive, controlling behaviour so she can put those counter-allegations to him, too. The prosecution should not be learning about Helen’s version of events when she gives examination in chief.
All of this will be relevant, also, to the family court proceedings. Whether or not Helen is found guilty, there will still be a dispute about Child Arrangements Orders and what is loosely termed contact and residence in the family court in relation to both children.
Miss Mid City, you make excellent points! Anna’s going to need a lot more than a few ‘boo-hiss’ type points to make this thing stick.
I was also disappointed not to hear the opening statement for the defence – we only heard what the prosecution was going to argue. Looks like SWs haven’t allowed it (or simply missed it out)!
As you’re our expert legal eagle, I wonder if you can clarify something.
What would be the position vis-a-vis Rob if Anna does elicit the truth from him about his coercive control of Helen during cross-examination? Would Helen have to press charges, or could the judge order that Rob be taken away by police for questioning either during or after the trial, regardless of the outcome for Helen?
Thanking you muchly! 🙂
Yes, what did happen to the defense’s opening argument? I thought, “well maybe they do things differently in England.” How many times did Rob perjure himself in his testimony? And on this side of the pond he would not have had such latitude to go off in his own direction under cross examination. Plus Anna’s questions and his answers have created giant opening for Jess to testify regarding how he treated her during their marriage.
What do you think, Miss Mid City?
Exactly, Witherspoon – I’m wondering if Anna will go back to Jess and try one last time to persuade her. Surely there must be someone out there willing to testify that Rob has tried to intimidate witnesses?
And is witness intimidation perverting the course of justice? That is a serious offence.
Here’s hoping Ian will come good on this one – he isn’t afraid of the dark lord!
The prosecution’s opening speech was incredibly brief which is OK but this is supposed to be the trial of an attempted murder charge as well as GBH so in reality I reckon it would have taken a lot longer. I’ve sat through opening speeches in murder trials that last for a full day.
I was struck by the fact that the prosecutor said he “anticipated” the defence. That’s odd: he shouldn’t be anticipating it – he ought to know it. Helen’s defence statement should have been prepared weeks ago. We should have heard Anna putting Helen’s case to Rob in cross examination.
Blithe Spirit, in criminal procedure in England and Wales, if you intend to call the defendant to give evidence with only character witnesses then you have no right to an opening speech. If, on the other hand, you intend to call witnesses who can give evidence about the facts of the allegation, then you can address the jury before calling your evidence. A defendant’s opening speech would be at the conclusion of the prosecution evidence.
As for Rob laying himself open to being charged with an offence, when I listened there just wasn’t enough substance there until the allegation of rape. We didn’t hear a coherent account of the litany of coercive and controlling behaviour. We only heard Anna putting it to Rob that he was controlling. The problem with the way that the rape allegation came out was that the allegation wasn’t put to Rob. Assuming the jury believe Helen (she acted in self-defence and she was the victim of abuse including sexual abuse) and she’s found not guilty, it would be a matter for the police if they want to investigate and for the CPS to prosecute. Whereas if Helen is found guilty, her credibility would be damaged and a prosecution would be less likely in my view.
And, yes, Witherspoon – it seemed to me that Rob was allowed too much freedom in both his evidence in chief and his cross-examination. Whilst I can sympathise because it can be hard to keep a witness under control the problem is it doesn’t show that Anna is very experienced or skilled: it only makes for good drama – not accurate drama. However, it’s not perjury really because Anna hasn’t presented any evidence to contradict him and show that he’s lying. Plus, he’s not the one on trial.
Having said that, she could have attacked his credibility with regard to his injury. He entered court using the walking stick. Surely she knew from seeing him around the village or from talking to Tony and Tom that he no longer needs the stick? She could have put it to him that he was exaggerating the impact of the injury and he was not being honest. After all, he’s supposed to be the cricket coach, he’s just taken on a new job and he’s been looking after Henry without Ursula – does he really need the stick? Obviously, the medical evidence is that he suffered a serious injury but is he just using the stick now to elicit sympathy? It’s a bit risky because the jury might think you’re being heartless but he might have made concessions and that might have led to the jury doubting him as a truthful witness.
And I, too, am waiting for Jess to show up and save the day even though in reality her evidence would not be sprung on the prosecution in this way.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.