law vs justice

An excellent speech to the jury, reminding them of their sacrosanct power and civic duty to do justice, even if it violates law; that one can be innocent, though guilty "in law." (from "Rumpole of the Bailey," series 6, episode 1: "a la Carte")

[@LordZontar]

"No British judge has the power to direct a British jury to find a defendant guilty!" One if Rumpole's finest moments ever.

[@vitamc1213]

Pretty sure they have the power to remove a guilty verdict though...

[@vitamc1213]

@Fussbudget the Ninth Oh yes, but I think, I was more thinking about an appeal.

[@MrTrevor181]

How I miss this lovable character!.

[@vantheman1238]

What a show, what writing, what a performance from Leo McKern

[@swastikausa]

leo mckern should have played churchill. hell he should have been pm for real.

[@Tailss1]

A judges comments like these in any Canadian court to a jury would result in a mistrial on appeal.

[@snowbird29803]

If I'm ever in a jam, I wish Rumpole would be my man. Used to watch him on PBS years-ago. An excellent example of knowing the rules and using them to your advantage. The system CAN work for the little-guy if he would only study, learn and face up to intimidation. Jury nullification, and now recording video and audio in public places and of our hired hands, go hand in hand. Rights not exercised are rights lost.

[@AVMamfortas]

We NEED an ARMY of Rumpoles in the Family Court

[@arakseepoom5784]

what would happen to all the dept.s of social services?

[@86hj49gt]

That's because of the high casualty rate taken by the Rumpoles.

[@Havhestur]

Long live Rumpole!!!

[@jackhoyne6240]

Yes long live rumpole

[@LiorIPSC]

They acquitted him, in contravention of the judge's instructions.

[@BigRedNev]

Lior Bar-On SPOILER. 😀😀

[@jamesmartin3578]

Yay.

[@heatherhewitt6992]

Arguably one of the most controversial aspects of having juries within the English legal system; irrespective of the advantages and disadvantages.

[@Junior-tq8hv]

Do we not need to assess the advantages and disadvantages in order to conclude whether a jury system is controversial in the first place, before presuming that it is?

[@Xfranman]

Good heavens, why? England is the seminary of the modern trial by jury. It is one of their gifts to the world.

[@Xfranman]

Absolutely true. And reforms may have taken place since Rumpole (John Mortimer) was called to the bar. In America, the role of judge is restricted solely to the fair conduct of trial within rules to effective that result. His/her opinions are strictly forbidden and rulings must not interfere with counsels' conduct of their case. Having served as a court official, in main, a court reporter, for me watching these delightful programs (of which there can never be enough) is sometimes horrifying when listening to the 'learned" judges insinuate themselves into trial. And, of course, our judges are not Lords/ladies or Your Worship, but Your Honor.

[@LiorIPSC]

An excellent example of jury nullification.

[@LordZontar]

Less of an example of jury nullification and more a matter of the jury making its determination upon the other factor to be weighed in adjudication: criminal intent/willful negligence or lack thereof. Although Graves J. believed that the entire case turned upon the strict letter of the law which left no room for doubt regarding guilt, Rumpole argued for his client's innocence on the basis that the appearance of the mouse in the restaurant was caused by a third party's own deliberate act and did not result from any prior negligence toward the health laws or actual criminal intent on defendant's part. And this in addition to the argument that Graves J. had no right as a judge to attempt to dictate from the bench to the jury what verdict they would render.

[@WilliamSmith-mx6ze]

@@LordZontar If you watch the whole episode of Rumpole, the law as stated is that if you serve up unhygienic food you are guilty of an offence regardless of intent.

[@LordZontar]

@@WilliamSmith-mx6ze Yes, and Rumpole's very argument was to ignore the law and apply *justice* . The law itself is unfair. That was Rumpole's point. That and how a jury could not be ordered to find a defendant guilty.

[@Edwards-Videos]

@@LordZontar Agreed. Had the jury listened to the judge in a similar real life situation, the Court of Appeal would have over turned the conviction.

[@carlamacasinag1548]

Need more people so spread this video more

[@Xfranman]

One of my absolute favorite summations. I know John Mortimer was a barrister but i wonder if a British judge is actually permitted to say these things. In America it would prove grounds for a mistrial on appeal and the judge would be subject to action.

[@TomRogersOnline]

Superb!

[@mik99D]

@snowbird29803 That is why justice should be seen in public and not hidden. A jury is the only way to get a fair hearing. The new idea of closed coursts and juryless trials goes against Magna Carta- which is the foundation of western law.

[@ihameduddin]

In the traditional common law, criminal liability attaches only when there is coincidence of a criminal act ("actus reus") and intent ("mens rea" or mental element) since "morality" dictates individuals should only be held liable when they have a criminal mindset, etc.. The controversy that Rumpole is referencing here is the (then) raging debate on the morality of strict liability offences where there is no need for a mental element. These types of offences really came into their own around the 70s (due to the otherwise great difficulty in proving a mental element in drug possession, traffic, health/safety and other offences) and which have proliferated in recent years. There is much to be said to reduce the range of behaviours carrying criminal liability in the common law world today, but "fat chance" of that happening anytime soon.

[@Dabhach1]

Give 'em Hell, Rumpole.

[@swastikausa]

leo mckern for president of australia. sorry bryan brown.

[@ndjsjsdndhd9486]

how did you do it can you share with me , thank you

[@ghughesarch]

@theporksicle Can't see where I've said I find it amusing - quite the reverse, in fact.

[@qetoun]

Juries may judge the law.

[@ghughesarch]

@theporksicle The Law says you can use "reasonable force" to protect yourself and your property. Your view doesn't enter into it. The jury decided that Martin's actions went far beyond what was reasonable. The BBC coverage of this also states that: "Martin had a history of gun-related misbehaviour, including firing upon a car six years before - an incident which led to his shotgun certificate being revoked." He's not some sort of "victim" of a miscarriage of justice

[@greenpedal370]

Martin shot the crook in the back with an illegal firearm. Secondly and more importantly. A retired policeman quoted in court overhearing Martins saying he would kill anyone who entered his house. Once a plod always a plod.

[@Bierhoff2220]

I wonder would happen if Rumpole ever had to go up Jack McCoy, or any of the prosecutors from the Law & Order series.?

[@ukchristian28]

It would be very interesting. I would like to have seen a Rumpole crossover with Judge John Deed. I imagine those two characters would have some interesting comments to make about each other.

[@joehayes9933]

@@ukchristian28 rumpole crossovers are sadly rare

[@markbenjamin1703]

Rumpole QC Vs Kavanaugh QC

[@mikeysteelie7704]

How naive do you have to be to still think, in this day and age, that a court room has anything to do with justice. It is always about the law and never about justice. Part of what the blind fold on lady justice is for. enjoy

[@squirlmy]

Well, really it is an argument for jury nullification, I'm not sure how the jury actually ruled in this episode. What was the verdict?

[@swastikausa]

i wonder what would have happened if rumpole had gone to northern ireland. non jury trials were common back then.

[@LordZontar]

@@swastikausa Rumpole has defended in venues where capital crimes were decided in bench trials. See "Rumpole And The Golden Thread".

[@LordZontar]

Verdict: not guilty.

[@lutonduke]

Wonder what the verdict was =)

[@squirlmy]

@M4Mnetwork Yay! People should be more aware of this. Jury nullification brought American Prohibition to an end, more surely than Capone ever could.

[@jamesmartin3578]

Did he get off?

[@bilkomax]

@Bierhoff2220 RUMPOLE WOULD DEFICATE ON THEM

[@ghughesarch]

@theporksicle well, for one, the jury didn't agree with it, for two "ooh, my lawyers have just made up a medical condition that'll get me off" doesn't seem very convincing to this juror. Why isn't he in hospital being treated for it then, rather than being the right-wing media darling? And "predisposed or not, he was right in my book" is a bollocks argument. Your view does not conform to Magna Carta - try reading it, rather than reading the Daily Mail.

[@thess1981kordelio]

Peter Ustinov gives an excellent speach on the matter of jury nullification.

[@sirvidia]

thess1981kordelio it's Leo McKern

[@ghughesarch]

@theporksicle Yes, your view is indeed irrelevant, as is that of anyone else who wants to make a political platform out of this - you started this, and you are wrong, as are the politicians who think that what The Law says is irrelevant - if The Law says you shouldn't be murdered, then presumably you'd be prepared to set that aside in circumstances that happen to suit you? Plus, you weren't a juror - the jurors decided he was guilty. So there.

[@WilliamSmith-mx6ze]

I for one would definitely set it aside in the case of anyone breaking and entering another person's home.