Ryan Giggs

[EIM]

My childhood being dismantled one dickhead at a time here. Fucking rotten nobheads, the lot of them.

[ursus arctos]

The defence's only hope appears to be to discredit the victim as completely as possible, which is a strategy that always leaves all neutral observers feeling dirty.

Satchmo's question of how this would have played out in the US is interesting. Most likely a substantial civil settlement, NDAs all around and no criminal trial. It would have been extremely different, as (for instance) the Deshaun Watson cases illustrate.

[Bizarre Löw Triangle]

I think I was flying to Hawaii that day and somehow missed it. The timing was odd, although I could see how the evidence he was getting via his lawyers changed the desire to brazen it out.

I suspect that it was more that Wales qualifying for the world cup added a whole load of extra risk for the FAW.

As in, the FAW were fine just letting his contract quietly run down while awaiting trial but it would be a disaster for them if Giggs was acquitted and wanted to return to the role, particularly if he was able to mobilise legions of internet misogynists to help make his case (and potentially refusing to let him lead Wales during the world cup could open them up to legal action).

[Lang Spoon]

God only knows Tony. I'm sure he has his reasons, whatever the hell they might be. But if he's doing what we think he's doing, that's going to have consequences. Particularly if he keeps it up. Apparently he's going to be appearing as a character witness along with a certain aged Knight of the realm. Maybe I've lead a sheltered life, but I don't know anyone who would do something like this. (The character witness thing, statistically speaking I must know several who have abusive relationships that I know nothing about)

I thought you'd met a few TDs. They are mad for the character witness bullshit statement prior to sentencing. Of course that's not during the trial and they aren't going it under oath.

[elguapo4]

I thought you'd met a few TDs. They are mad for the character witness bullshit statement prior to sentencing. Of course that's not during the trial and they aren't going it under oath.

Don't forget the local priest , anything those fuckers say would make me want to double the sentence.

[Tony C]

Apparently he's going to be appearing as a character witness along with a certain aged Knight of the realm. Maybe I've lead a sheltered life, but I don't know anyone who would do something like this. (The character witness thing, statistically speaking I must know several who have abusive relationships that I know nothing about)

“Well I can honestly say I never saw him physically abuse or display controlling tendencies towards women when I was with him, your honour”

No, you won’t have. That’s the point.

[Lang Spoon]

Don't forget the local priest , anything those fuckers say would make me want to double the sentence.

I've seen a few judges quoted recently as saying they won't accept character references for sentencing unless the TD/creeping Jesus is willing to say it in court and under oath. Good.

[ursus arctos]

Do the UK or Ireland actually allow "character witnesses" for the trial proper (guilty/non-guilty, not the sentencing phase) without their being under oath and subject to cross examination?

I can't see how they could possibly get there, but I've been surprised before.

[Bizarre Löw Triangle]

Do the UK or Ireland actually allow "character witnesses" for the trial proper (guilty/non-guilty, not the sentencing phase) without their being under oath and subject to cross examination?

I can't see how they could possibly get there, but I've been surprised before.

it's only during the sentencing phase in englandandwales
edit no wait that's wrong
edit2 character witnesses can be used during the trial proper normally when the trial depends on who out of two testimonials are more credible.

[Etienne]

In my years of sitting in criminal trials, character witnesses were very rare, and only during sentencing. Which is not to disagree with BLT but to say that the grounds for the exception he states must be very rare, given that a lot of trials including nearly every domestic violence or sexual violence depends on who out of two testimonials are more credible.

[ursus arctos]

But they would still have to be under oath and subject to cross examination, right?

Otherwise, they aren't really witnesses (at least in my understanding of the term).

[Etienne]

Not under cross examination. Can't remember if they were under oath, but would expect so.

[ursus arctos]

Sorry, but you are talking about the sentencing phase, right?

I was asking about the exception that BLT identified.

[DCI Harry Batt]

This is useful, on "good character":

https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk/good-character

[Etienne]

Ah, yes, I was talking about the sentencing. As I say, I never witnessed a character witnesses as part of a trial.

[Bizarre Löw Triangle]

This is useful, on "good character":

https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk/good-character

So are you saying that if an (entirely hypothetical) person has been charged with assaulting their partner and had, say, 25 years ago been reported to have assaulted their partner the judge/the prosecution might seek to bring those reports up in court as evidence of bad character.

And given those actions were never prosecuted, so can potentially be left up to the jury to decide how much weight they place on it, getting the hypothetical defendant's hypothetical celebrity mates to testify what a nice chap he (or she) is might serve as a defence (of sorts) against a bad character inference?

[DCI Harry Batt]

I feel I'm not qualified to comment.

[Antepli Ejderha]

That phonecall transcript is pretty harrowing. I wonder what Gary Neville thinks now about liars.

[Patrick Thistle]

Giggs turn to answer questions today. Apparently admitted he has never been faithful to any of his partners.

[Antepli Ejderha]

Giggs turn to answer questions today. Apparently admitted he has never been faithful to any of his partners.

This was when questioned by his own defence team.

[Satchmo Distel]

Making a minor truthful statement to try to hoodwink the jury that the rest isn't a bunch of lies.

[Evariste Euler Gauss]

Yes that was my take too. Not sure how much were allowed to make that kind of comment though, prior to the verdict.

Hardly news anyway, I mean it's a matter of record that he was shagging his brother's wife for years. ;

[Patrick Thistle]

He apparently told the police at the time that he punched his partner in the face.

[Uncle Ethan]

Juries are directed not to read online comments (good luck). The days of enforcing the laws around sub judice and contempt of court seem long gone anyway.

[ursus arctos]

Ferguson doesn't appear to have been cross examined today, which completely baffles me