From: Vince Brannigan
Subject: Re: [NEWS]: Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots
References: <3D959025.284F175B@verizon.net> <email@example.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 02:04:09 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2002 22:04:09 EDT
Keith Willshaw wrote:
> "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.
The coroners inquest, like a civil trial mury in the usa is not part of
the criminal justice system