Mason Greenwood

J Doughnut said:
He isn’t an 'innocent' man at all. The CPS don't decide on someones innocence, they decide whether or not there is sufficient evidence to prosecute.

In this case the loss of the key witness meant they decided to discontinue the prosecution, keeping it under continuous review.
Click to expand...

The CPS doesnt decide, you are exactly right, the courts do.
oh and yes he is innocent.
 
Last edited:


FootballFan said:
The CPS doesnt decide, you are exactly right, the courts do.
Click to expand...
The concept of the presumption of a defendant being innocent until proven guilty is entirely to place the burden of proof on the prosecution. If the CPS does not prosecute, it does not mean that someone is innocent. Interestingly (but not necessarily relevant outside of criminal court), when it comes to issues of consent the burden will often be on the defendant.

The fact that the CPS lost a key witness, and so didn't go to court does not make someone innocent. By that reasoning any criminal who has not been caught is innocent. Not at all what 'pressumed innocent' means.

To further illustrate this point, if Greenwood was to raise a civil action for defamation relating to someone calling him a rapist, the primary absolute defence would be that the statement was true, with the burden on whoever made the statement. As it would be a civil case, it would be based on the balance of probabilities. The fact that the CPS did not prosecute wouldn't matter, and wouldn't demonstrate innocence. The recording and photos would most likely be enough 'on the balance of probabilities' to demonstrate the veracity of the statement.

There are a number of moral and ethical arguments regardng 'innocence', but as you continually focus your argument around "basic legal principles" you clearly no fuck all about, I focussed my response in that area.
 
J Doughnut said:
The concept of the presumption of a defendant being innocent until proven guilty is entirely to place the burden of proof on the prosecution. If the CPS does not prosecute, it does not mean that someone is innocent. Interestingly (but not necessarily relevant outside of criminal court), when it comes to issues of consent the burden will often be on the defendant.

The fact that the CPS lost a key witness, and so didn't go to court does not make someone innocent. By that reasoning any criminal who has not been caught is innocent. Not at all what 'pressumed innocent' means.

To further illustrate this point, if Greenwood was to raise a civil action for defamation relating to someone calling him a rapist, the primary absolute defence would be that the statement was true, with the burden on whoever made the statement. As it would be a civil case, it would be based on the balance of probabilities. The fact that the CPS did not prosecute wouldn't matter, and wouldn't demonstrate innocence. The recording and photos would most likely be enough 'on the balance of probabilities' to demonstrate the veracity of the statement.

There are a number of moral and ethical arguments regardng 'innocence', but as you continually focus your argument around "basic legal principles" you clearly no fuck all about, I focussed my response in that area.
Click to expand...

Wrong again, the person is innocent until proven guilty, its kind of basics.

In the current case it didnt even go to court so mob mentality musings over an internet tape are pretty irrelevant.
 
FootballFan said:
Wrong again, the person is innocent until proven guilty, its kind of basics.

In the current case it didnt even go to court so mob mentality musings over an internet tape are pretty irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Your robust and well evidenced response has converted me. I shall return my LLB tomorrow.

Edit: you are also missing a very key word: presumed innocent. A key distinction
 
Last edited:
It’s a difficult issue and one not well suited to discussion on an internet message board. Serious allegations were made by an individual, along with apparently irrefutable evidence being made public, but the victim decided against proceeding with a criminal prosecution.

It is incredibly unhelpful for strangers, unfamiliar with the details of the case, to speculate on the truth of what happened.

However, I would be disgusted if that lad ever signed for SAFC.
 
Bobthebasted said:
I am not disagreeing with most posters about him.. But cmon it's becoming libelous. Crazy so many post haven't been deleted.
Click to expand...
You’re right and I’ve been warned for calling a spade a spade, sad state of affairs really. I stand by my original comment, but I’ll not repeat it as I don’t want to be banned.
 

Back
Top