Gyrocopter involved in murder charge

[Fly_For_Fun]

Shows what an ass the law is.

[SilsoeSid]

I'm amazed that a Chinese Tank driver/Commander can assess the consequences of their actions and therefore doesn't continue to take action that would risk an individuals life......


<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/u7Mf9j8co70&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/u7Mf9j8co70&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>


...yet Mr Griffiths, "who trained as an engineer at Dunlop Aviation and worked at Rolls-Royce" and is also an aircraft pilot,... does not.

given the fact he had been told several times to move out of the way, not only by myself and others, and had clearly been told the aircraft was going to take off, I feel that all the things that could have been done were done. I do not actually feel responsible.'

Surely to have someone so close to this type of aircraft with the engine running, one would know what was coming next. Did he allow pax to get in and out with it running? I wonder why not!

http://www.airport-data.com/images/aircrafts/small/143/143307.jpg

[seang]

The Times can reveal today that Mr Griffiths’s passenger was a convicted animal rights extremist. The jury was not told that John Curtin, 49 had been jailed for two years for planning to dig up the remains of the 10th Duke of Beaufort and send the head to the Princess Royal. His part in the 1980s plot was intended, he said, to give fox hunters, whom he called “blood junkies”, a “taste of their own violent medicine”.

Mr Curtin, who had led the campaigns at Huntingdon Life Sciences’ laboratories and was questioned by police in connection with robbing the grave of Gladys Hammond, a relative of owners of a farm breeding guinea-pigs for experiments, was the first to volunteer to sit in the back of the gyrocopter. A few months later the two took to the air together, dividing their time between the Warwickshire and neighbouring Haythrop hunts

And what, exactly, is the relevance of this gem to this court case? Are we supposing that the evil Mr Curtin was in the back seat egging on Mr Griffiths in a dastardly way to kill this fella? "Go on son, chop his head off, he murders foxes." I know this is a rumour network, but a few facts wouldn't go amiss when trying to convict a person in an online kangaroo court. As far as I know Curtin was not on trial as an accessory to murder or any other charge in this dreadful episode, whatever the Times may say, so I 'm at a loss to see what this has to do with anything. Other than perhaps a character assassination on the gyrocopter pilot for mixing with the sort of people who get jailed for "planning" to dig up a body and "questioned" but not charged, for grave robbing. Whatever Curtin's past, he did not chop Mr Morse's head in two. Or did he? Perhaps the Times knows something we don't.
Best wishes all
Seang

[heli-cal]

Heli-cal:
I had no doubt that the pilot would be cleared, once the facts were known to the jury.

Bronx:
Good for you.
In the end, the jury weren't sure the pilot was guilty but it took them 7.5 hours to give him the benefit of the doubt.

"In the end, the jury", with the benefit of hearing and seeing all the evidence, hearing and seeing the Defendant, witnesses, experts, barristers and Judge, and after "7.5 hours" of deliberation, cleared the pilot, as charged!

The verdict of the jury absolutely confirms that they were certain that the pilot was not guilty as charged, despite your ludicrous statement.

heli-cal:
He should sue for false arrest, imprisonment and malicious prosecution!

Bronx:
If you were able to look at the facts objectively you'd be able to see that the pilot has no grounds to sue for any of those things.

What are the facts to which you refer?

The jury gets to hear that which is legally relevant, clearly, the spent convictions of the passenger did not fall into that category!

[Flying Lawyer]

I make no comment whatsoever about the specific case under discussion. That is intentional.

Heli-calThe verdict of the jury absolutely confirms that they were certain that the pilot was not guilty as charged, despite your ludicrous statement.
Your bold assertion is incorrect; you misunderstand the criminal trial process.

The burden of proving a defendant's guilt is on the prosecution and the standard of proof required is high. In England & Wales, the judge directs a jury in these or very similar terms:
The prosecution must prove that the defendant is guilty. He does not have to prove his innocence. In a criminal trial the burden of proving the defendant's guilt is always on the prosecution.
How does the prosecution succeed in proving the defendant's guilt? The answer is - by making you sure of it. Nothing less than that will do.
If after considering all the evidence you are sure that the defendant is guilty, you must return a verdict of 'Guilty'.
If you are not sure, your verdict must be 'Not Guilty'.
NB: Being "certain that the defendant is not guilty as charged" (your proposition) is not the criterion.
eg A jury considers that the defendant is probably guilty: Verdict = Not Guilty.
eg A jury is almost sure the defendant is guilty: Verdict = Not Guilty.

In common parlance, it is often referred to as giving a defendant the benefit of the doubt. In law it means that the prosecution has not proved guilt to the required standard.
In Scotland there is a third verdict available of ‘Not Proven’. That is not an option in England & Wales nor, as far as I’m aware, in any other jurisdiction.

He should sue for false arrest, imprisonment and malicious prosecution!
You don't say why you think the pilot would have grounds for each or any of those claims. :confused:

The fact that someone is subsequently acquitted does not of itself mean that the arrest was unlawful.
Nor, where he is remanded in custody for any period pending trial, that he was unlawfully imprisoned.
Nor that it was a malicious prosecution.

FL