It's a long story how I came to find this article, so I'll skip that. But for once, celebrity news actually has me thinking about something that, well, isn't entirely stupid. I mean, maybe I am for not knowing the answer. But, hey, today's my day to learn something.
To start with the story itself:
Now, normally, it is amusing enough to see a police chief and prosecutor arguing over such a basic point, but the dispute has brought to light a proposition that I thought was an American myth about the Crown. While Mr. MacDonald did not go forward for technical reasons—e.g., lack of evidence—that is unsatisfactory to Sir Ian:
See, when we were children, kids in my corner of the U.S. were taught that our legal system was set up as a counterpoint to the evil British way of doing things. What evil way? In England, they told us, you were guilty until you could prove yourself innocent.
And while that was true in certain cases pertaining to the Colonies, I really could have sworn that England was not so ... um ... yeah. Sorry, I don't have a kind word for the guilty-until-proven-innocent bit. That part of our Revolutionary myth, at least, stuck.
What the hell is Sir Ian talking about?
And, hey, while we're on the subject of the British legal system, do you have the right to refuse to testify against yourself, and what are the implications of such a refusal on a verdict? Because in the United States, if that case came to trial, Ms. Moss would never take the stand, and the state, having no evidence aside from a picture, would simply be unable to meet the standard of evidence. Only a tailor-made jury would, under the American system, convict a defendant like that.
______________________
Notes:
Associated Press. "Kate Moss should've been brought to trial: police". CTV.ca. June 6, 2008. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080606/Moss_trial/20080606
To start with the story itself:
London's police chief and England's chief prosecutor are at odds over whether Kate Moss could have been brought to trial on suspicion of using an illegal drug.
The dispute centres on an incident three years ago when a newspaper published a photograph of Kate Moss apparently snorting a white powder through a rolled-up five-pound note.
Police investigated the case at length but the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to take it to court. Similar issues arose in more recent cases involving singer Amy Winehouse and Peaches Geldof, daughter of activist-rocker Bob Geldof.
In an interview published Friday in the London Evening Standard, Sir Ian Blair, the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said a jury should have been allowed to decide.
But Ken MacDonald, who heads the Crown Prosecution Service, said Blair seemed not to understand the law. MacDonald said prosecutors would have to prove that the powder was a particular class of drug, which was impossible ....
(Associated Press)
Now, normally, it is amusing enough to see a police chief and prosecutor arguing over such a basic point, but the dispute has brought to light a proposition that I thought was an American myth about the Crown. While Mr. MacDonald did not go forward for technical reasons—e.g., lack of evidence—that is unsatisfactory to Sir Ian:
Blair said the burden should be on the suspect to persuade a jury that the powder was a legal substance.
"You convince me that you're taking talcum powder," Blair said.
"My position is that a sensible jury would not expect people to be sniffing talcum powder."
Moss' lawyer specifically denied that the powder was cocaine but did not claim that it was talcum.
(ibid)
See, when we were children, kids in my corner of the U.S. were taught that our legal system was set up as a counterpoint to the evil British way of doing things. What evil way? In England, they told us, you were guilty until you could prove yourself innocent.
And while that was true in certain cases pertaining to the Colonies, I really could have sworn that England was not so ... um ... yeah. Sorry, I don't have a kind word for the guilty-until-proven-innocent bit. That part of our Revolutionary myth, at least, stuck.
What the hell is Sir Ian talking about?
And, hey, while we're on the subject of the British legal system, do you have the right to refuse to testify against yourself, and what are the implications of such a refusal on a verdict? Because in the United States, if that case came to trial, Ms. Moss would never take the stand, and the state, having no evidence aside from a picture, would simply be unable to meet the standard of evidence. Only a tailor-made jury would, under the American system, convict a defendant like that.
______________________
Notes:
Associated Press. "Kate Moss should've been brought to trial: police". CTV.ca. June 6, 2008. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080606/Moss_trial/20080606