Author Topic: 44 Minutes.  (Read 339 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11232
Re: 44 Minutes.
« Reply #30 on: October 28, 2019, 10:30:PM »
Yes but it is not all of the material which has to be disclosed.
Do you mean the Prosecution can get round the law?

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11232
Re: 44 Minutes.
« Reply #31 on: October 28, 2019, 10:31:PM »
The OJ case has no relevance today.

How many innocent people take a plea bargain?  ???
Race is a huge issue in America today.

Due to lack of resources I'm quite sure many innocent people will take a plea bargain.

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 910
Re: 44 Minutes.
« Reply #32 on: October 29, 2019, 08:13:PM »
Do you mean the Prosecution can get round the law?

Technically, no, but in reality, yes.

The law was changed to stop the defence being able to see everything, on the grounds that it was too costly and time consuming. Some of the changes included the defence having to give "good reason" for requesting to see something (and thereby disclosing potential defences to the prosecution, who would then have an opportunity to circumvent those defences) and a disclosure officer being appointed to decide what should and shouldn't be disclosed to the defence (on the basis of whether it would undermine the prosecution case or assist the defence).

A recent all select committee group found there was widespread abuse of the disclosure system, with a mindset amongst police officers that upholding their case was paramount and keeping potentially helpful material from the defence was decided as a matter of course.

Anyone who has the time and inclination can read the whole report here
https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/justice-committee/inquiries/parliament-2017/disclosure-criminal-cases-17-19/