The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[Fisherman]

Whether, theoretically, there would be sufficient evidence to justify criminal proceedings against Lechmere/Cross, and what evidence would, theoretically, be deemed admissible.

Ah, yes. Theoretically.

[John G]

Ah, yes. Theoretically.

Yes, but these issues are relevant on account of James Scobie's opinion that, theoretically, there was sufficient evidence to prosecute Lechmere.

[Fisherman]

Yes, but these issues are relevant on account of James Scobie's opinion that, theoretically, there was sufficient evidence to prosecute Lechmere.

That was Scobies view of it, yes. But there will never be any trial, so I suggest that the significance of what Scobie said lies not in any upcoming legal event, but instead in how we may do well to realize that even if Scobie was not right - but I fail to see how you and I are knowledgeable enough of matters law to decide that - we would still be looking at a case where a QC and barrister took it upon himself to declare that there was a legal case to be had.

In how many other cases do we come even close to that? Kosminski? Druitt? Bury? Levy?

The fact is that there is no other case where a QC and barrister would coming even remotely close to making the assessment that Scobie did visavi Lechmere. Per se, that is a mighty reminder to each and everyone about what status as a suspect Lechmere needs to be given.

It really is that simple.

[David Orsam]

Waky, waky! Hello!!! Anybody in there? There has been thousands and thousands of legal cases involving press material, interviews etcetera. People who have sued newspapers on account of faulty and damaging articles, have they been denied a trial with the words "that was just information, it´s inadmissible as evidence"? Have they, Harry?

You are very confused Fisherman if you think there is any comparison between a newspaper article which is the subject of libel proceedings and a newspaper article being introduced into criminal proceedings to stand as evidence against a defendant in respect of what an individual has seen, heard or done.

[John G]

You are very confused Fisherman if you think there is any comparison between a newspaper article which is the subject of libel proceedings and a newspaper article being introduced into criminal proceedings to stand as evidence against a defendant in respect of what an individual has seen, heard or done.

A newspaper article couldn't be introduced into criminal proceedings in this way as it would fall foul of the hearsay rule.

[Fisherman]

A newspaper article couldn't be introduced into legal proceedings in this way as it would fall foul of the hearsay rule

Of course, I am not speaking about anything of that. I am speaking about how a newspaper article can be evidence, and admissible as such in a court of law. It is not information only as Harry suggests, it can double as evidence. Plus I am saying that there will be no trial in this case. Plus I am saying that the material we have in Lloyds points to Paul having hurried, and that this is therefore the more likely thing than him having walked in a slow or medium fast manner.

An idea: You can discuss this with David, who I am not discussing with anyway. It should keep us all happy, and we can, each and every one, discuss what we want to discuss instead of what others suggest we are more keen on discussing.

[David Orsam]

Of course, I am not speaking about anything of that. I am speaking about how a newspaper article can be evidence, and admissible as such in a court of law. It is not information only as Harry suggests, it can double as evidence. Plus I am saying that there will be no trial in this case. Plus I am saying that the material we have in Lloyds points to Paul having hurried, and that this is therefore the more likely thing than him having walked in a slow or medium fast manner.

An idea: You can discuss this with David, who I am not discussing with anyway. It should keep us all happy, and we can, each and every one, discuss what we want to discuss instead of what others suggest we are more keen on discussing.

There isn't anything to discuss. The newspaper article would have been inadmissible as evidence.

[Fisherman]

It seem David does not want to discuss your chosen topic anymore, John G.

[David Orsam]

It seem David does not want to discuss your chosen topic anymore, John G.

I'm sure I just posted that there is nothing to discuss.

But if you think that, on the contrary, there is something to discuss do feel free to say what you think it is.

Otherwise we can safely take it that the newspaper article in question would not have been admissible.

[John G]

There isn't anything to discuss. The newspaper article would have been inadmissible as evidence.

But would this necessarily apply to legal proceedings in a civil court? See The Civil Evidence Act (1995): http://www.ehlsolicitors.co.uk/hearsay-civil-courts/

[John G]

Of course, I am not speaking about anything of that. I am speaking about how a newspaper article can be evidence, and admissible as such in a court of law. It is not information only as Harry suggests, it can double as evidence. Plus I am saying that there will be no trial in this case. Plus I am saying that the material we have in Lloyds points to Paul having hurried, and that this is therefore the more likely thing than him having walked in a slow or medium fast manner.

An idea: You can discuss this with David, who I am not discussing with anyway. It should keep us all happy, and we can, each and every one, discuss what we want to discuss instead of what others suggest we are more keen on discussing.

I, of course, accept that a newspaper article is evidence in respect of constructing a hypothetical case against a suspect. However, in a criminal case it would amount to hearsay evidence, as it does not amount to an oral testimony given in a court of law.

[David Orsam]

But would this necessarily apply to legal proceedings in a civil court? See The Civil Evidence Act (1995): http://www.ehlsolicitors.co.uk/hearsay-civil-courts/

John, hearsay would be if the journalist attempted to give evidence about what Paul had said to him, to stand as evidence as what Paul had seen, heard or done. The newspaper article itself doesn't even get that far because it's not a category of document capable of being admissible on its own.

I'm not sure why you are referring to legal proceedings in a civil court in any case. We are talking about (and I certainly was) whether the newspaper article would have been admissible in a criminal trial. It would not.

[John G]

John, hearsay would be if the journalist attempted to give evidence about what Paul had said to him, to stand as evidence as what Paul had seen, heard or done. The newspaper article itself doesn't even get that far because it's not a category of document capable of being admissible on its own.

I'm not sure why you are referring to legal proceedings in a civil court in any case. We are talking about (and I certainly was) whether the newspaper article would have been admissible in a criminal trial. It would not.

Yes, David, as regards a criminal trial I would agree. However, in respect of legal proceedings, it might be admissible evidence in a civil case, i.e. in respect of a tortuous action for damages in respect of assault and battery.

[David Orsam]

Yes, David, as regards a criminal trial I would agree. However, in respect of legal proceedings, it might be admissible evidence in a civil case, i.e. in respect of a tortuous action for damages in respect of assault and battery.

I disagree. A judge would certainly rule it inadmissible in a civil case as evidence against Lechmere. Not because of hearsay but because it is not a document capable of being admitted as evidence to prove what Paul said.

But the issue I am addressing is whether Scobie could take it into account as evidence in saying that there was sufficient evidence to charge Lechmere. Plainly he could not.

As evidence in an internet debate, however, I don't have any problem calling it "evidence".

[Fisherman]

Yes, David, as regards a criminal trial I would agree. However, in respect of legal proceedings, it might be admissible evidence in a civil case, i.e. in respect of a tortuous action for damages in respect of assault and battery.

A quick googling (which is how far my legal insights reach) tells me that newspaper evidence is sometimes allowed, sometimes not. On a site where (US) lawyers discuss the issue, one such lawyer starts out by saying "If it is relevant and it is not hearsay, it may be admissible" and ends by stating "In short, these are matters that no one except a lawyer should try to deal with because they require in-depth knowledge of the law of evidence."

It would seem that our learned friend thinks himself better equipped to decide this - and I am not ruling out that he may be - but as far as I am concerned, I´m going with the professional view, suspecting that British law will not differ very much on the point.

Not that it matters, since there will be no trial. All we can do is to recognize the article as evidence, although not of the highest order, and work from that point of view.

I have nothing much more to say about the matter.