Seeing Is Believing (06/09/11)
The Sunday Herald ran an interesting article from Paul McBride QC - giving an insider's view of the recent jury trial in Edinburgh - which decided that a drunken lout did not assault the Celtic manager - Neil Lennon.
Here's part of what Paul McBride had to say:
"There was widespread incredulity at Edinburgh Sheriff Court last week when John Wilson was acquitted of assaulting Neil Lennon and acting in a manner aggravated by religious prejudice.
A number of lawyers have offered their views on this case, with John Scott QC risibly claiming, if you weren’t sitting in court, you weren’t really able to offer a view of the verdict.
It is important to understand the facts of what occurred in the Sheriff Court.
1. John Wilson was seen by millions of viewers around the world running on the pitch at Tynecastle, running towards Neil Lennon and charging and lunging at him.
2. No witness who said Neil Lennon was assaulted was challenged in any way by the defence that their account was not accurate.
3. John Wilson gave evidence to the effect he assaulted Neil Lennon and admitted striking him on the head.
4. He wrote a letter to Neil Lennon apologising for attacking him.
5. Defence Counsel informed the court the only issue in dispute in the trial was whether John Wilson had made some hate-filled remarks.
6. Defence Counsel explained to the jury his client had offered to plead guilty both to the breach of the peace charge and the assault on Neil Lennon subject to the deletion of the aggravating factor of religious hatred.
Against that background the jury returned a verdict of guilty of breach of the peace under deletion of the aggravating factor but acquitted him completely of the assault charge, which he had already acknowledged he was guilty of. No amount of legal spin can explain how a jury could acquit of an assault in these circumstances, whether one is present in the court or not."
I have to agree with Paul McBride - after all seeing is believing.
And the facts are that a Scottish football manager was assaulted while doing his job - by a violent, drunken oaf - who had no business on the football pitch.
In all kinds of disciplinary situations - other people sitting as panels or 'juries' making important decisions about people's lives and livelihoods - have to give clear reasons for reaching their decisions.
So why not demand the same from juries in Scotland's courts?
Because last week's decision at the Sheriif Court makes about as much sense - as the Edinburgh trams project.
