JAKUB TOMCZAK - guilty?

I hope this answers your questions Wrocław and Matty. I researched Scots Law for 4 years so I can easily get hold of more specialised stuff. Unfortunately, I am no longer in a position to gain access to the CELEX database.

Where does that leave the law? It is perhaps a definition of what "not proven" means; that is, if the jury has a lingering doubt in its mind. If the jury has a lingering doubt, the honest and straightforward answer is to acquit the accused because the Crown has not satisfied it beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.

The above was taken from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199495/ldhansrd/vo950116/te xt/50116-08.htm

It is a sacrosanct principle of law that we must favour the accused in the event of any incertitude/uncertainty. We hold this dear in Scotland

But they are my equal and I'm sure share the same moral code. I would trust someone of sound mind and no criminal record to discuss the evidence, if I had to face them.

Basically it is used when the evidence does not conclusively prove a person is guilty. It does not mean that the jury felt the accused was "not guilty" merely that the evidence was not enough or that it was presented in a way which left some doubt.

Which is why it has its critics, the accused is frequently seen as "getting away with it" rather than being "not guilty".

I agree, very often a jury returns "not proven" when really it should be "guilty". "Not proven" rarely means "not guilty". If you are returned a verdict of "not proven" then you can expect that it's because the prosecution presented poorly rather than your defence being any good.

Hmm, it's a case by case thing but there can be lingering doubts in people which gives the verdict some merit. However, the flip side is that we must be seen to be rational and the criminal standard is 'beyond REASONABLE doubt'. By incorporating reasonableness, we lower the likelihood of bad outcomes. It's better than the 'suspicion' standard in operation under internment, especially when things were politically loaded. The rubber stamping and the Brown Committee in Britain were farcical.

Ur approach is a little 'public perception' based Szkotja2007, the evidence is key, but the other side is that justice must be seen to be done. It sides more with libertarian ideas that we must be that bit surer to deprive one of their liberty.

I agree, it should be innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent....

If this system were used in England, in the Tomczak case, then it's possible that he would have got a Not Proven verdict.

How does Not Poven affect ones criminal record ? Can one still obtain a position of trust ?

It would depend. Nowadays things are based a lot on "Disclosure". It would show up on a Disclosure check for sure but whether you were given a job or something would depend on what the verdict was for.

Disclosure checks are required now for any jobs in a "position of trust" setting.

I would like to have faith in the system but unfortunately I dont. Too many innocent men have been punished for crimes they did not commit for me to have unreserved faith in the British judicial system.

A jury of 12 men have found Tomasz guilty, off to jail he goes. Serve his time and he'll still be a young man when he gets out. If there is enough doubt in his conviction there will be an appeal, a re-trial and if the court finds in his favour he will be a free man once again.

He will also be able to sue for wrongful conviction which will probably make him a richer man than if he had spent te same amount of time working in the UK as he had in jail. He came to the UK to make money, if he is innocent then he stands to do just that. If he s guilty, then he has got whats coming to him.

I agree with that 100%, I think we all do...... and personally if he's guilty he got off easy.....



With this it's a little more difficult.... Prison sucks, I don't think you can give me any amount of money to spend 20 years of my life or whatever his sentance was behind bars.... However reality is that no system will ever be perfect and I guess the only compromise we can make is to compensate these people..... though throwing money at the problem doesn't make it fair (and correct the injustice) it is the closest to fair we can get......

PD is right, Disclosure has been a major initiative in Scotland for some time now. I remember having to apply for jobs and satisfying this requirement. Necessary bureaucracy in this case.

As for being behind bars, the old philosophical 'verstehen' approach is key, i.e putting urself in the other person's shoes. Imagine being deprived of liberty for 20 years. Wow, that's bad/rough u say to urself and maybe others, but please ACTUALLY IMAGINE IT. Just like the Twin Towers, and I apologise profusely to anyone who lost love ones then, please see that plane flying at u directly at high speed and being forced to jump, IMAGINE IT.

People were saying, well, Kuba will only get 9 years unlike 20 in Poland. Maybe, but we must position ourselves more in the picture/scene. The anger of an innocent (I'm not saying he is) man proven guilty must be tantamount to torture, an inner torment.

So, less bias please and more rationality

Yes of course. The fact that his semen was found inside a rape victim does not prove that he raped her. It just proves that he had sex with her.

Of course Jakub denied having sex with her as well as raping her....

Wasted words on me, Harry.

I've already said he is guilty.

Had sex with her and then let another man rape her, what?

ah well,I rather imagine his butt hole is a little wider than it was pre prison so,fek him.

I agree, I spent 3 days in jail..... Jail not even prison...... It was the worst experience of my life.... I was treated like a dog........ and even though legally guards can't hit you, good luck proving a Bit*h slap or a punch to the stomach.

I hear u man. I've seen some brutal beatings dished out by prison guards on the centre (center) of my universe, Youtube. Bloody savages.

lol, I have to admit it is an awesome site.....

youtube.com/watch?v=LbiYR8CgJiE the only video that pops up on the case.

The defence counsel said it was difficult to assess to what extent the rape was planned.

"We suggest the evidence paints a picture of something not planned, not planned for any length of time," he said. "It does not appear to be one of those cases where something was in the defendant's mind for a long period of time before the commission of the offence." From 'lawyers' HAHAHA

WOW, horrible answer for 2 reasons. Firstly, in the seminal case in Scotland, Stallard Vs HMA, rape is simply forced penetration into the vagina without her consent. So, it is rape, regardless of 'the best of intentions' or planning process or whatever else.

Secondly, it doesn't matter that it wasn't in his mind for "a long time". It's sufficient that he had the necessary [i]mens rea[i] for carrying out the crime and that he perpetrated the act of forcible penetration without consent.

Pre-meditated (planned) intentions are more important when differentiating murder and manslaughter/homicide, the nature of rape is different.

I spent an afternoon in a Police cell,does that count? ;) ( and no,no beatings,just a cup of tea and a bisquit :) )...Still,not somewhere I have any plans to revisit :(

A cup of tea and a biscuit u say, u'd get the same if u met the Queen.