My question is in connection with this
apparently lamentable case. The Czech media - and Zdenek's friends- are understandably furious. For years I've been going round here saying that our justice system is one of our great strengths. But one cannot judge based just on media reports, so I presume one can gain full access to such judgements.
When, where, how? I have no idea
Thanks in advance. RIP Zed.
Comments
If it went to the court of appeal then BAILII is the place to go http://www.bailii.org/databases.html
I didn't do that so I don't know what the evidence was, for or against. Certainly the reports don't sound great, but since when did the press report everything impartially and with an even hand, particularly when there is a "Brexit" angle to be had?
As far as I know a jury aren't required to give written explanations for their decisions. So that's all you're getting. Not perfect, but what system is?
Surprised you're apparently ready to hang the defendant though Prague.
Without wishing to comment on this case, it is true to say that juries can and do come up with rogue decisions.
This seems to be particularly true of certain Crown Courts in certain locations. Snaresbrook, for example, once (still does?) had a terrible reputation for getting guilty verdicts through the system. Things seem to be changing though with guilty verdicts rising from around 75% 15 years ago to maybe 85% now.
Whether that's as a result of better investigations, better prosecution decisions by the CPS, better prosecuting Counsel or any of a number of other factors I have no idea.
What I have read about the victim, and living among Czechs and observing their conflict-avoiding nature, makes me worried about the judgement. And I don't like to see the perplexed and anguished reaction of the Czech media, who have always held our justice system in high regard.
But, on a tangent, I get fed up reading about how the latest stabbing victim was a good Christian lad who loved his mum and wasn't in a gang. Seems like being in a gang is the safest route as none of them ever get killed. Ever.
My point? Well, there's two sides to every story and unless you hear all the evidence it's difficult to make judgements based purely on media reports - or the views of one "Side" alone.
But, as I said, it certainly doesn't sound great. However, from the report I read it seems as though the accused had shown genuine remorse. Not that that always means a lot.
Reminds me of the case of the British girl murdered in Italy. The UK press painted the American suspect as a femme fatale whilst the US press painted the accused as a scapegoat. No doubt that Prague has highlighted the Czech's dismay at the verdict.
But that is exactly why I'd like to get a lot more detail than the press reports (incidentally looks like the Mail simply cut and pasted the Guardian's one. It is identical.So I am not even sure the Brexit angle has been played as the two papers have polar opposite Brexit stances.)
The verdict is - on the face of publicly available information - very concerning. There seems to be no dispute as to the circumstances, and even manslaughter would seem to be very light.
I saw the case in the paper and recognised it from our debate. For what it's worth, I actually wrote a post about it - and still have the draft available - and it was very much about the murder going unpunished.
Sadly I attempted to get court documents from a rape trial around 2 years ago, and short of getting details about the time and location, I had no luck. In a similar circumstance to your own, I was involved with the victim and only able to make part of the proceedings; but the verdict seemed unjust, went against the evidence available and was ultimately a very difficult pill to swallow. Attempts to fully comprehend the situation were incredibly difficult as court records were not available.
Have you tried contacting reporters who were at the hearing? If this was a case that had interest abroad, then surely there was an international presence in the public gallery?
Failing that, perhaps some of our legal addicks could help - as I thought all judgements were stored and available for the purposes of subsequent cases.
But, just by doing a quick Google search I found a ruling that arose from the fallout of a case that I was involved with many years ago. It was in 1998 and, strangely, it was languishing in the University College Cork archive! So some stuff is out there! But I think stenographers have now been phased out and replaced by digital recordings. Producing an accurate transcript of a recording is a time consuming and expensive business. I doubt very much that it would be done at all unless the case was of specific importance or went to appeal.
If the record existed but had not been converted into a transcript, I've no doubt a (hefty?) fee would be required to get it produced.
2 will be irretrievably stupid, to the point you wonder how they get through life and manage to get dressed in the morning.
2 will hate the police/justice system due to a minor traffic offence or unsolved burglary.
2 simply won't care and will want to go home.
So at least half of all juries are going to be hard to get a guilty verdict out of.
@smudge7946 . I would prefer to believe your view is cynical. Unfortunately i fear it is bang on the money. Yet our justice system is widely respected around the world, especially here. Or it was until Monday.