Not to entering a plea when in court

[infobleep]

Is there any good reason why it would be better for a defendant not to enter a plea when in court?

If you remain silent they default to Not Guilty I believe.

Back in the distant past, if you didn't enter a plea you would be pressed for an answer. If you didn't answer with a plea you'd eventually die from the heavy rocks or other objects placed on top of you. This would enable your lands and money not to be forfeited though so your family could still inherite them rather than the state.

I assume if they default to Not Guilty now and they have no method of killing you for not answering, you couldn't avoid not having to pay money as the case will happen with you there. Assuming your found guilt and have to fine money due to that.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I'm going a long way back in my mind here to A-level Law, but isn't it the case in courts now that inferences may be drawn from silence / 'No comment', or does that only apply to certain proceedings?

 

[Iskra]

There's no good reason. Other than more attention seeking, of which I'm sure we'll see plenty more from this dropout.

It's very annoying for the families, surviving victim and witnesses who now have to go through an unnecessary court case in a distant city.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Is there any good reason why it would be better for a defendant not to enter a plea when in court?

There's no sensible reason to, given that a failure to plead defaults to "not guilty" and you only get the discount on sentencing if you actively plead guilty.

People who refuse are normally either attention seekers, "Freemen on the Land" whackjobs, or both.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Back in the distant past, if you didn't enter a plea you would be pressed for an answer. If you didn't answer with a plea you'd eventually die from the heavy rocks or other objects placed on top of you. This would enable your lands and money not to be forfeited though so your family could still inherite them rather than the state.

The last recorded case of death by Peine forte et dure in this country for refusing to submit a plea was in 1741, but it was not abolished until as late as 1772.

 

[DarloRich]

the judge will simply instruct that a not guilty plea be entered on the record on your behalf. It is a waste of time and is simply a way to try and gain some semblance of control and garner extra attention.

You also lose your tariff discount for pleading guilty!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

You also lose your tariff discount for pleading guilty!

Now that sounds good news.

 

[DarloRich]

Now that sounds good news.

not for the justice system it isn't!

 

[AlterEgo]

not for the justice system it isn't!

Perhaps not, and it'll make the trial more costly - but this guy (if found guilty) deserves the maximum sentence. Killing an elected representative is extremely serious.

 

[DarloRich]

Perhaps not, and it'll make the trial more costly - but this guy (if found guilty) deserves the maximum sentence. Killing an elected representative is extremely serious.

Indeed - but the OP didn't ask about that particular case. He asked a general question.

The general rule is that you get a discount for a guilty plea. However
there is not a statutory right to a discount. it remains a matter for the discretion of the court.

Int resting information here: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_-_general_principles/#a02

 

[Tetchytyke]

You also lose your tariff discount for pleading guilty!

The minimum sentence for murder is life imprisonment, so there's not much discount to be had by pleading guilty at an early stage...

Generally, however, you get a 33% discount if you plead guilty at the first opportunity. The amount reduces down to about 10% if you plead guilty on the day of trial.

 

[DarloRich]

The minimum sentence for murder is life imprisonment, so there's not much discount to be had by pleading guilty at an early stage...

Generally, however, you get a 33% discount if you plead guilty at the first opportunity. The amount reduces down to about 10% if you plead guilty on the day of trial.

Agreed - however you may be offered a reduced recommended sentence in return. Life with a minimum of 20 is better than life with a minimum of 30 years!

 

[infobleep]

Thanks for the replies. I thought that to be the case but was interested anyway.

I've got a quote from, I believe, John Evelyn's diary. He was attacked and robbed by highwaymen. After managing to escape being tied up, he raised the alarm. This found some of the stolen jewellery and caught one of the robbers.

Upon not entering a plea he was pressed to death. And then John Evelyn's diary entry carries on matter of fact as if the fact the robber was pressed to death was an insignificant run of the mill event.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[61653 HTAFC]

There's no good reason. Other than more attention seeking, of which I'm sure we'll see plenty more from this dropout.

It's very annoying for the families, surviving victim and witnesses who now have to go through an unnecessary court case in a distant city.

Upon seeing this thread appear on this day, I've made the same assumption you have about which trial in particular may have prompted this thread (our shared location being a slight clue)...

The perverse (in the broadest sense of the word) nature of the crime in question, and the presumptive motives for said crime, just continue to sicken and sadden me. But then (and I'm being careful not to prejudice proceedings here) mental health is assumed to be a factor in this presumed case, and as much as it may sicken myself and others with the implicit things which go along with a "not guilty" plea I do feel that defaulting to that plea is the most "just" thing to do in this case. Bearing in mind also that the victim of said crime was an advocate for mental health issues, in this case particularly it strikes me as important that the court system is held to a high standard.

On the wider subject, defaulting to a guilty plea would be decidedly problematic, in my opinion.

 

[DarloRich]

On the wider subject, defaulting to a guilty plea would be decidedly problematic, in my opinion.

That's why it is a default not guilty plea. Even those who refuse to take part at all are given every opportunity to defend themselves, instruct counsel etc.

However, the court and the jury are allowed to draw such inferences as appear proper from the failure of the accused to give evidence or from his refusal, without good cause, to answer any question. The jury should also be directed appropriately by the judge regarding the silence. That said the jury may not convict solely on the basis of the accused’s silence at trial.

 

[infobleep]

Upon seeing this thread appear on this day, I've made the same assumption you have about which trial in particular may have prompted this thread (our shared location being a slight clue)...

The perverse (in the broadest sense of the word) nature of the crime in question, and the presumptive motives for said crime, just continue to sicken and sadden me. But then (and I'm being careful not to prejudice proceedings here) mental health is assumed to be a factor in this presumed case, and as much as it may sicken myself and others with the implicit things which go along with a "not guilty" plea I do feel that defaulting to that plea is the most "just" thing to do in this case. Bearing in mind also that the victim of said crime was an advocate for mental health issues, in this case particularly it strikes me as important that the court system is held to a high standard.

On the wider subject, defaulting to a guilty plea would be decidedly problematic, in my opinion.

I didn't mention the case on purpose but it was a news report online that got me thinking about it. No mention of mental health in the news report but perhaps they can only mention that if it's mentioned in court.

We have a much better understanding of mental health than in the times of pressing people for an answer. That is all for the better.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Busaholic]

Upon seeing this thread appear on this day, I've made the same assumption you have about which trial in particular may have prompted this thread (our shared location being a slight clue)...

The perverse (in the broadest sense of the word) nature of the crime in question, and the presumptive motives for said crime, just continue to sicken and sadden me. But then (and I'm being careful not to prejudice proceedings here) mental health is assumed to be a factor in this presumed case, and as much as it may sicken myself and others with the implicit things which go along with a "not guilty" plea I do feel that defaulting to that plea is the most "just" thing to do in this case. Bearing in mind also that the victim of said crime was an advocate for mental health issues, in this case particularly it strikes me as important that the court system is held to a high standard.

On the wider subject, defaulting to a guilty plea would be decidedly problematic, in my opinion.

An excellent post. I'd just like to add that there could at some stage (presumably only now when the trial is due to start) be raised the issue of 'fitness to plead'. If nobody, prosecution, defence or defendant raises it as an issue then it will not be so! It is entirely up to the judge in question to establish, once the subject has been raised, how to proceed e.g. calling for compulsory psychiatric examination: the judge him/herself could also at any stage halt the trial if he/she considered the defendant did not have the mental capacity to receive a fair trial. It is not unknown, of course, for 'fitness to plead' to be attempted to be misused by defendant/ defence counsel.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

An excellent post. I'd just like to add that there could at some stage (presumably only now when the trial is due to start) be raised the issue of 'fitness to plead'. If nobody, prosecution, defence or defendant raises it as an issue then it will not be so! It is entirely up to the judge in question to establish, once the subject has been raised, how to proceed e.g. calling for compulsory psychiatric examination: the judge him/herself could also at any stage halt the trial if he/she considered the defendant did not have the mental capacity to receive a fair trial. It is not unknown, of course, for 'fitness to plead' to be attempted to be misused by defendant/ defence counsel.

This is where the law gets tricky- having a diagnosed mental illness does not mean that a defendant will be declared mentally unfit to stand trial, nor to enter a plea, nor to plead guilty to manslaughter by reason of insanity. Likewise, a defendant who is declared unfit, or is allowed to plead guilty by reason of insanity, may not necessarily be given a diagnosis of a mental illness by a psychiatrist. Generally the bar for the insanity defence is much higher than the clinical criteria used in a medical sense.

 

[Busaholic]

This is where the law gets tricky- having a diagnosed mental illness does not mean that a defendant will be declared mentally unfit to stand trial, nor to enter a plea, nor to plead guilty to manslaughter by reason of insanity. Likewise, a defendant who is declared unfit, or is allowed to plead guilty by reason of insanity, may not necessarily be given a diagnosis of a mental illness by a psychiatrist. Generally the bar for the insanity defence is much higher than the clinical criteria used in a medical sense.

Yes, anything could happen yet. Of course, we don't know what is going on behind the scenes, but it could just be the defendant has been advised not to enter a plea, or to say anything at all in court, rather than the inference being given to it by some of the press.

 

[cf111]

From a Scottish perspective, there can be perfectly valid reasons for not entering a plea, for example if the Crown have not disclosed all of the evidence available to you or your solicitor for whatever reason.

If a serious offence is alleged (murder, rape, serious assaults), the accused will appear before the Sheriff, in private, "on Petition" and will in 99.9% percent of cases "emit no plea and no declaration" and either be bailed or remanded in custody. If remanded they will appear again after 7 days have passed for a "full committal", where they will be "fully committed for trial and remanded in custody." If this happens the Crown must serve an indictment on the accused and take them to trial within 140 days, if they don't then the indictment falls. The accused is not required to enter a plea until the "first diet" or "preliminary hearing", which can sometimes be months after they first appeared if they are bailed.

 

[Howardh]

I wouldn't plead guilty to anything until I have seen the evidence against me. If someone pleads guilty, can the Crown introduce more evidence ---or withdraw evidence (in which case he may wish to change his plea) -- against them after that plea?

Also - "reasonable force". It's often up to a jury to decide if, say, a bouncer has stopped someone with reasonable - or unreasonable force (assault). Only the jury knows what reasonable force is (OK, I'm sure they will be guided but ultimately it's their choice) so why should the bouncer incriminate himself by pleading guilty when he doesn't know if he's guilty or not, and suffer the concequences if he is?

 

[DarloRich]

I wouldn't plead guilty to anything until I have seen the evidence against me. If someone pleads guilty, can the Crown introduce more evidence ---or withdraw evidence (in which case he may wish to change his plea) -- against them after that plea?

Also - "reasonable force". It's often up to a jury to decide if, say, a bouncer has stopped someone with reasonable - or unreasonable force (assault). Only the jury knows what reasonable force is (OK, I'm sure they will be guided but ultimately it's their choice) so why should the bouncer incriminate himself by pleading guilty when he doesn't know if he's guilty or not, and suffer the concequences if he is?

I think you are a little confused about the way the system works!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

On the wider subject, defaulting to a guilty plea would be decidedly problematic, in my opinion.

Out of interest, why?

 

[DarloRich]

Out of interest, why?

because you would proceed straight to sentencing without any trial.

 

[Howardh]

I think you are a little confused about the way the system works!

Fair enough...I don't use it much!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Out of interest, why?

because you would proceed straight to sentencing without any trial.

Cheers Rich, that was indeed my point. The idea that one is innocent until proven otherwise would be turned asunder if the default was a guilty plea.