Tweet
This is a very curious one. I won't tell you what the actual case is until I get at least 6 opinions. When you find out what the case is, you will be surprised. But let's treat this as a purely
hypothetical question for now... Here's the scenario:
an Ireland-based film maker is arrested and extradited to the UK then put on trial for perverting the course of justice on 2 counts, because he sent 2 dvds of his own documentary to the judge and jury foreman at a trial concerning a major crime. The film-maker ADMITS he sent the DVD 's of his film because he believed the man on trial was innocent and the Government were actually guilty of the crime! His film asserts this with evidences in no uncertain manner. However, the dvds never reach the judge and jury foreman because they are intercepted by court staff. However, attempting to pervert the course of justice only requires the ACT of sending the material to the court. Intent is all here, and the film maker ADMITS he sent the films and ADMITS he wanted the content of the films to influence the trial but in a good way [amicus curiae brief] to help prove the man was innocent and the Government guilty. A FEW YEARS LATER: 3 days before the film maker's trial, the government release national coverage via TV and newspapers contradicting the content of the man's dvds and, effectively, absolving themselves of any culpability in the major crime featured at the first trial. The film maker's jury are sure to have seen these newspaper and tv stories contradicting the content of the film maker's dvd.In court, the film maker is accused of making a fanciful film containing false information. Again, the film maker ADMITS he sent the film to the first trial with intent to influence the outcome and have the man acquitted.. He never contests this. At the film maker's trial the prosecution decide to show the film maker's dvd to the jury. Despite all the the stories of 3 days earlier, contradicting the assertions in his film, the film maker is acquitted on both charges. WHY? Is it because the jury believed the content of film asserting Government complicity in the major crime or...?
hypothetical question for now... Here's the scenario:
an Ireland-based film maker is arrested and extradited to the UK then put on trial for perverting the course of justice on 2 counts, because he sent 2 dvds of his own documentary to the judge and jury foreman at a trial concerning a major crime. The film-maker ADMITS he sent the DVD 's of his film because he believed the man on trial was innocent and the Government were actually guilty of the crime! His film asserts this with evidences in no uncertain manner. However, the dvds never reach the judge and jury foreman because they are intercepted by court staff. However, attempting to pervert the course of justice only requires the ACT of sending the material to the court. Intent is all here, and the film maker ADMITS he sent the films and ADMITS he wanted the content of the films to influence the trial but in a good way [amicus curiae brief] to help prove the man was innocent and the Government guilty. A FEW YEARS LATER: 3 days before the film maker's trial, the government release national coverage via TV and newspapers contradicting the content of the man's dvds and, effectively, absolving themselves of any culpability in the major crime featured at the first trial. The film maker's jury are sure to have seen these newspaper and tv stories contradicting the content of the film maker's dvd.In court, the film maker is accused of making a fanciful film containing false information. Again, the film maker ADMITS he sent the film to the first trial with intent to influence the outcome and have the man acquitted.. He never contests this. At the film maker's trial the prosecution decide to show the film maker's dvd to the jury. Despite all the the stories of 3 days earlier, contradicting the assertions in his film, the film maker is acquitted on both charges. WHY? Is it because the jury believed the content of film asserting Government complicity in the major crime or...?
Comment