Law lecture 2, massive delay due to thinking I'd already posted it. (Also I'm trying out a different method of blogging, rather than just listing my notes)

Again, my bad about the lateness but the title explains it, also this blog post would probably be better had it been posted when everything was fresh in my mind but still.
Court reporting:
The second law lecture was all about court reporting, including the do's and don'ts in essence. For example, stressing the presumption of innocence. Everyone must be believed to be innocent until the prosecution service can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they're guilty. An example of when this was not done is with Christopher Jefferies in the Jo Yeates murder investigation. Jefferies was her landlord who was brought in for questioning as a suspect. Even though he hadnt been charged with anything he was basically crucified by the papers, as this photo shows. This would've had seriously biased any jury against him had it gone to trial. This links into the whole courts process. In order for justice to be seen to be done trials must be held in the public realm, this isnt as in the trials of ye olde times where you'd be at the mercy of a baying croud, more that the public have easy access to information on how the trial is proceeding. This is of course unless there's a strong reason why not to have the trial in public, but this is only usually if there's a national security risk, such as in a terrorism case. The publics access to the trial information is governed over (not to sound too sinister) by the press, which leads to the press being the "eyes and ears of the public".
Any crime which carries a sentence of 5 years or more must be tried in criminal court infront of a jury. This is evidence based justice, where the evidence is tested by a jury of peers. This is a right enshrined in the Magna Carta and, in Chris's opinion, the only evidence that will ultimately prove guilt is a witness, forensic evidence or a confession (or a combination of the above). Once the jury has been shown all the evidence and the respective arguments for guilt have been made, they will consider the evidence and then report their verdict to the judge. Importantly, it is the judge and not the jury who ultimately decides the verdict, who will make his/her choice on the admissibilty of evidence and advice from the jury.

Crown Court:

The key functions of crown court are to try indictable offences, sent for trial by magistrates; to deal with cases sent for sentence and to hear appeals. Though you cannot ask for a trial by jury for a minor offence, there are a series of offences which you can go to trial by jury and to the crown court, for example the possession of class B drugs.Though you can request a trial by jury and go through the vastness of the British legal system, it's hardly a good idea, as apparently is pleading not guilty. The more time you put into a case, especially a trivial offence, the less favour and sympathy you will win for yourself, the judge may even be harder on you for wasting the courts time, and hold you in.....
Contempt of Court:

Contempt of court is a strict liability offence, this means that there is no defence for it, so saying you didnt mean to do it wont help you. The punishment for contempt of court ranges from a fine to a possible jail sentence of 5 years. This is because it can completely collapse a court case, as happened with the trial of Leeds United footballers Lee Bowyer and Jonathan Woodgate. The then editor of the Sunday Mirror, Colin Myler, ran an article that included interviews from the family of the victim of the alleged grievous bodily harm with intent. These interviews were not taken under oath, as they would be in court, and were published while the trial was still underway. Since this had the potential to corrupt the jury the judge had no choice but to throw the case out of court. Myler however, escaped jail but instead was fined £30,000. Again, to quote Chris, prejudice is Red Kryptonite to both court cases and journalists.