Originally Posted by
jumpseater
Bearing in mind the potential for sub judice discussion here, Wales On Line’s reporter’s are picking out some very salient elements of the trial. Whichever way the jury goes, there’s going to be plenty of WTF? discussion material afterwards….
Read from the bottom upward.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/w...trial-21887929
This is one of the most thorough pieces of court reporting I have seen in a very long time. If you haven't time to read the whole thing, I suggest that you read the judge's outline of the basic aspects of the case and the guidance given to the jury as "The "route to a verdict"", which I have quoted below:
The 'route to verdict'
Mr Justice Foxton reads out from a document provided to the jury called the route to verdict.
The document states:
1.
- Are you sure the flights did not have the required authorisation or permission
- Are you sure the pilot David Ibbotson did not have a commercial pilots licence
- Are you sure David Ibbotson’s rating to fly N264DB expired in November 2018
- Are you sure bad weather was forecast and David Ibbotson was not confident to fly in such weather
If you are sure of any of these matters, proceed to question two.
2.
- Are you sure that the relevant matters individually or in combination gave rise to a real risk to N264DB which could not be safely ignored.
- If you are not sure of these matters you should find the defendant not guilty.
If you are sure, proceed to question three
3.
- Are you sure that in organising the flights in circumstances which there was a real risk to the safety of N264DB which could not be safely ignored, firstly that the defendant was aware of that risk. If sure, you should find the defendant guilty. If you are not sure, you should move to part two.
- If you are sure he failed to show such care or skill that a person in that situation should exercise, you should find the defendant guilty.
If you are not sure, find the defendant not guilty.
YS