From: "Keith Willshaw"
Subject: Re: [NEWS]: Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 23:19:27 +0100
References: <3D959025.284F175B@verizon.net> <email@example.com>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 22:19:24 +0000 (UTC)
"Brian Sharrock" wrote in message
> > I posted the same thing several days ago BUT it
> > scarcely disproves the point that a court is the
> > instrument for declaring that a criminal act occurred.
> > Keith
> Let's rephrase what Vince said
> "No Conviction by a criminal court means no crime occurred".
> or "only a conviction in a criminal court determine,
> legally, that a crime has been committed".
> Vince states that only a conviction in a criminal
> court can declare that a criminal act occurred.
> All I'm pointing out is that a Coroners Court, in
> England and Wales, can deliver a verdict of 'unlawful
> killing'. _Without_ , not even citing suspects, let
> alone making a conviction. Thus, in England & Wales,
> a court - part of the legal albeit not criminal, nor
> ecclestiacal, nor chancery, nor Admiralty, nor family-
> but still a court can deliver a verdict that a crime has
> taken place.
I agree with Vince in so far as it takes a court judgement
to decide a crime has been committed but disagree if he
insists that only a trial in a criminal court can decide that.
However its clear that a criminal court has the final
word. Say for example that the coroners court declares
a averdict of unlawful killing, a defendant is arrested and put
on trial and is acquitted on the grounds of self defense.
In that case no crime was committed despite the
finding of the coroners court.