Giggs Verdict: Hung Jury.

bill40

bill40

Well-known member
The jury was unable to give a verdict after hearing all the evidence and deliberating for 20 odd hours (which is long). This should be the end of the matter as any retrial will be at least a year away. IMO this case had no business in a crown court and there are only two reasons it ever got that far. 1. Celebrity nuff said. 2. The charge of coercive control which carries a maximum sentence of 5 years. Every man reading that should be terrified.

The charges: It was a minor drunken domestic altercation that ought to have been settled by magistrates or in the civil courts. No I am not trivialising domestic abuse, it needs to clamped down on but using a celebrity to do so is just pathetic. Had he been found guilty my magistrates he'd have probably been bound over given no previous convictions.

Now to the nub of the matter coercive control (CC). If any of you guys know what it is please write to the MoJ because they've had to put a call out for papers because this law is so badly drafted. CC is by it's current definition impossible to prove and all but impossible to bring against women it's a tool of oppression brought by rank misandrists. Well done the jury I think they reached the correct verdict.

To end on a note of agreement he ought to have been jailed for at least 10 years for his poetry.
 
thedevilsadvocate said:
You can't ask for a re trial just because you didn't get the result that you wanted.
Click to expand...
Maybe you can if it’s a hung jury ?

Anyway. A very difficult crime to prove, unless there is more evidence we aren’t party to. So not surprised at the outcome at all.

As for the controlling coercive behaviour. A nightmare to pin down and prove 100% I would say.

Most victims will just suck it up and live a life of misery or use the strength they have to leave and recover in time.

Legally a minefield and quite stressful to go through too if you seek litigation I would imagine.
Just pick your partners wisely folks 🤷‍♀️
 
The CPS will decide if it's worth a re-run. It might not be keen considering that juries are reluctant to convict famous people, that the trial was in Manchester and that the iconic Alex Ferguson gave him a glowing character reference. The guidance from the CPS states: “The decision to seek a re-trial will depend upon the public interest. Only cases involving significant public interest factors in favour of prosecution warrant a re-trial.”
 
Whatever happens Giggs rightly comes across as a complete cnut. Shagged his brothers wife, admitted on oath he'd never been faithful to any partner. Tosser
 
Lala said:
Maybe you can if it’s a hung jury ?

Anyway. A very difficult crime to prove, unless there is more evidence we aren’t party to. So not surprised at the outcome at all.

As for the controlling coercive behaviour. A nightmare to pin down and prove 100% I would say.

Most victims will just suck it up and live a life of misery or use the strength they have to leave and recover in time.

Legally a minefield and quite stressful to go through too if you seek litigation I would imagine.
Just pick your partners wisely folks 🤷‍♀️
Click to expand...
To my knowledge, you are judged by 12 of your peers. If all 12 are not convinced during their decision phase, then a trial judge will allow a majority decision. In this case a majority decision wasn't achieved so the judge has to dismiss the case. As far as I'm aware, there can only be a retrial if there was a mistake made in the legal process during the trial. Rightly or wrongly, he walks. Tam ??
 
thedevilsadvocate said:
To my knowledge, you are judged by 12 of your peers. If all 12 are not convinced during their decision phase, then a trial judge will allow a majority decision. In this case a majority decision wasn't achieved so the judge has to dismiss the case. As far as I'm aware, there can only be a retrial if there was a mistake made in the legal process during the trial. Rightly or wrongly, he walks. Tam ??
Click to expand...
I believe they have the option to seek a retrial and then as TTJ states the CPS will decide.
 
Lala said:
I believe they have the option to seek a retrial and then as TTJ states the CPS will decide.
Click to expand...
But on what basis ? The prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offences. If the jury cannot as a majority, I think it's 10 v 2 jurors, agree then the case can't be proved and the judge has to dismiss. That's how our judicial process works.
 
Last edited:
thedevilsadvocate said:
But on what basis ?
Click to expand...
I’m assuming on the basis that there hasn’t been a verdict. I’m no expert though and I doubt a retrial will be forthcoming because I don’t think a conviction is inevitable ergo worth persuing with the all round lack of evidence.

I think Giggs is a **** based on many things, but I don’t think I would convict on this assault charge based on too many unknowns.
 
Lala said:
I’m assuming on the basis that there hasn’t been a verdict. I’m no expert though and I doubt a retrial will be forthcoming because I don’t think a conviction is inevitable ergo worth persuing with the all round lack of evidence.

I think Giggs is a **** based on many things, but I don’t think I would convict on this assault charge based on too many unknowns.
Click to expand...
I've edited my previous post
 
Lala said:
Maybe you can if it’s a hung jury ?

Anyway. A very difficult crime to prove, unless there is more evidence we aren’t party to. So not surprised at the outcome at all.

As for the controlling coercive behaviour. A nightmare to pin down and prove 100% I would say.

Most victims will just suck it up and live a life of misery or use the strength they have to leave and recover in time.

Legally a minefield and quite stressful to go through too if you seek litigation I would imagine.
Just pick your partners wisely folks 🤷‍♀️
Click to expand...
CC is the most appalling law currently on the statute book. I think the CPS will be reluctant to go for a rematch given nobody else has come forward with stories of previous violence which would surely have happened if he had such a history.
 
thedevilsadvocate said:
But on what basis ? The prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offences. If the jury cannot as a majority, I think it's 10 v 2 jurors, agree then the case can't be proved and the judge has to dismiss. That's how our judicial process works.
Click to expand...

The point is that a jury verdict is a finding of fact that can only be overturned if there's a serious failure in the legal process, but a failure to reach a verdict is not a verdict, he has not been found "not guilty", this is a mis-trial, and that allows the prosecution to go again if they want to.
 
One v one crimes with no witnesses are incredibly difficult to prove as this case shows. Would be a waste of taxpayers money for the CPS to pursue this case, fortunately for Giggs !
 
Shandypants said:
Whatever happens Giggs rightly comes across as a complete cnut. Shagged his brothers wife, admitted on oath he'd never been faithful to any partner. Tosser
Click to expand...

I wouldn't know the exact ins and outs of the case Shandy and wouldn't comment on the legal side of things but it would be hard to argue that Giggs is not morally bankrupt.
 
bill40 said:
CC is the most appalling law currently on the statute book. I think the CPS will be reluctant to go for a rematch given nobody else has come forward with stories of previous violence which would surely have happened if he had such a history.
Click to expand...
There are stories of previous incidents but you cant force people to come forward .
 
bill40 said:
CC is the most appalling law currently on the statute book. I think the CPS will be reluctant to go for a rematch given nobody else has come forward with stories of previous violence which would surely have happened if he had such a history.
Click to expand...

Every fecker on the planet could be found guilty of coercive controlling behaviour if they were put in court and got the jury on a bad day.

That is not to say that there are not people who behave unacceptably towards their partners.
 
bill40 said:
He wasn't on trial for being a tosser we've all been that at least once in our lives.
Click to expand...
I know we have but I can't say I've shaggedmy brothers wife. It says a lot about his character, despite the "glowing" reference Ferguson gave him.
 
thedevilsadvocate said:
One v one crimes with no witnesses are incredibly difficult to prove as this case shows. Would be a waste of taxpayers money for the CPS to pursue this case, fortunately for Giggs !
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean they won't though, in fact if he wasn't a celeb I doubt the case would've made it to court in the first place..
 
Shandypants said:
I know we have but I can't say I've shaggedmy brothers wife. It says a lot about his character, despite the "glowing" reference Ferguson gave him.
Click to expand...
His Character is not in doubt but not relevant to the case. Anyone that shags his Brother’s wife is scum. With a clever legal team and a retrial I recon he will still get away with it.
 
Shandypants said:
I know we have but I can't say I've shaggedmy brothers wife. It says a lot about his character, despite the "glowing" reference Ferguson gave him.
Click to expand...
I didn't shag my brother's wife either but I didn't really fancy him anyway.
 
Seasider1887 said:
His Character is not in doubt but not relevant to the case. Anyone that shags his Brother’s wife is scum. With a clever legal team and a retrial I recon he will still get away with it.
Click to expand...
He's done nothing I can see to get away with, total waste of crown court space.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top