A deficit of understanding - how prevalent is this?

[Barbirollians]

So how do you determine balance of probability when the evidence basically comes down to whether or not you believe what someone says about their mental state at a particular moment 10 years ago? When presented with a prosecution which says something along the lines of 'she's a high-flyer, a career woman, if you think she could be coerced into doing anything you're having a laugh'?

The example you give involves (a) witness evidence (b) physical evidence. Which is why I queried your statement that it is a simple question of fact. Which brings me back to my sense, from what I've read, that it's all very well to say there's a clear distinction between inference and speculation except where there isn't a clear distinction.

It is very simple - inference arises from conclusions drawn from evidence . In this case for example the jury's assessment of whether they believe she is telling the truth . Speculation does not .

[Barbirollians]

I looked it up in that fount of legal knowledge, Wikipedia, and it agrees with Barbirollians and me (and Jean - post 31):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_coercion

However, this does not necessarily make me think that Sweeney was wrong. After all, if he did say it as reported, I'd have expected counsel for the prosecution to have been on his feet immediately. That would have been reported.

Pabs - it is set out in SEction 47 itself .

[Pabmusic]

It is very simple - inference arises from conclusions drawn from evidence . In this case for example the jury's assessment of whether they believe she is telling the truth . Speculation does not .

I'd go a little further and suggest that speculation ignores evidence and attempts to find explanations without any.

[Pabmusic]

Pabs - it is set out in SEction 47 itself .

Yes - it's a statutory defence, isn't it? I've only just looked on Wikipedia - I'd hate anyone to think that was my primary source!

[Nick Armstrong]

I'd go a little further and suggest that speculation ignores evidence and attempts to find explanations without any.

Or perhaps: speculation ignores the fact that there is NO evidence, and attempts to find explanations without any.

I was not there I have no idea what Sweeney J said nor do I know what he said in his summing up but I am sure he made the constituent elements of the defence clear .

That's a very good example of speculation!

[Julien Sorel]

It is very simple - inference arises from conclusions drawn from evidence . In this case for example the jury's assessment of whether they believe she is telling the truth . Speculation does not .

So if no evidence in any form other than narrative statement of this is what happened (no contemporary witness evidence, no physical evidence, no medical evidence - a psychiatric report, say) is presented what are the jury supposed to do? Assuming the narrative is internally coherent (there are no internal contradictions) and plausible in that it doesn't involve something like the defendant being kidnapped by aliens? I reckon all they can do is ask themselves whether it sounds more or less plausible. Given that it's possible to infer it's true if you believe the defendant, untrue if you don't.

Even I can understand the theoretical and indeed practical distinction between inference and speculation. But I'm obtuse enough to be able to think I can imagine plenty of situations where the first shades into the latter. Presumably it would be frowned at if the jury simply said 'we haven't the foggiest. Because we have nothing tangible to go on"?

[Barbirollians]

Or perhaps: speculation ignores the fact that there is NO evidence, and attempts to find explanations without any.



That's a very good example of speculation!

NOt so sure about that . I am drawing inferences from the nature , qualifications and experience of a High Court Judge .

[Pabmusic]

Or perhaps: speculation ignores the fact that there is NO evidence, and attempts to find explanations without any...

[Barbirollians]

So if no evidence in any form other than narrative statement of this is what happened (no contemporary witness evidence, no physical evidence, no medical evidence - a psychiatric report, say) is presented what are the jury supposed to do? Assuming the narrative is internally coherent (there are no internal contradictions) and plausible in that it doesn't involve something like the defendant being kidnapped by aliens? I reckon all they can do is ask themselves whether it sounds more or less plausible. Given that it's possible to infer it's true if you believe the defendant, untrue if you don't.

Even I can understand the theoretical and indeed practical distinction between inference and speculation. But I'm obtuse enough to be able to think I can imagine plenty of situations where the first shades into the latter. Presumably it would be frowned at if the jury simply said 'we haven't the foggiest. Because we have nothing tangible to go on"?

In that case , the jury would surely be saying that the evidential burden has not been discharged by the defendant ? She has not proved she was coerced in the presence of her husband.

[Barbirollians]

I think we are dancing on the head of the same pin here !

[Pabmusic]

I think we are dancing on the head of the same pin here !

Not very roomy, is it?

[Julien Sorel]

According to Mr Justice Sweeney (as reported) no such "burden" exists. The jury asked him whether it did ....

Where no evidence exists (Caliban). Exactly!

[Nick Armstrong]

NOt so sure about that . I am drawing inferences from the nature , qualifications and experience of a High Court Judge .

As opposed to evidence of the actual facts in question...

[Pabmusic]

According to Mr Justice Sweeney (as reported) no such "burden" exists. The jury asked him whether it did ....

Where no evidence exists (Caliban). Exactly!

Then, if he did say that (which would have been mistaken) it was advice that favoured the defence.

[Barbirollians]

As opposed to evidence of the actual facts in question...

As I am sure you know as well as I do a newspaper report is not always entirely reliable evidence of what was said . Do you really think it likely that Sweeney J did not explain the constituent elements of Section 47 CJA 1925 defence to the jury ?