Explore Justice on OpenLearn
What is the role of the barrister?
The Open University
The position of barrister is crucial in the justice process. Our panel explains why. Read more : What is the role of the barrister?
What makes a good barrister?
The Open University
Our panel of legal experts consider what it is that makes a good barrister. Read more : What makes a good barrister?
What makes a good judge?
The Open University
The figure who must ensure that both sides feel the justice process is fair. But what does that entail? Read more : What makes a good judge?
Law in Scotland
Jupiter
Just how does the law in Scotland differ from the law in England? Read more : Law in Scotland
Study at the OU
An introduction to law in contemporary Scotland
The Open University
This unit explores the legal history of Scotland, the Scottish Parliament and its relationship with the UK Parliament Read more : An introduction to law in contemporary Scotland
Study at the OU: Law
Production team
The Open University offers a range of law courses. Discover more about them here Read more : Study at the OU: Law
Justice: A Citizen's Guide on BBC Four
OU on the BBC: Justice: Amnesty! When They Are All Free
Amnesty International
Marking the 50th anniversary of the campaigning group, Storyville presents a history of Amnesty International. Read more : OU on the BBC: Justice: Amnesty! When They Are All Free
OU on the BBC: Justice: Timeshift - Crime and Punishment - The Story of Capital Punishment
BBC
Timeshift steps outside the highly charged debate over electric chairs and fatal injections to investigate the facts about judical killings. Read more : OU on the BBC: Justice: Timeshift - Crime and Punishment - The Story of Capital Punishment
OU on the BBC: Justice: Timeshift - Crime and Punishment - The Story of Corporal Punishment
BBC
Spare the rod and spoil the child? Timeshift looks back to what the world was like before the rod was spared. Read more : OU on the BBC: Justice: Timeshift - Crime and Punishment - The Story of Corporal Punishment
OU on the BBC: Justice: Timeshift - Retrial By Television
BBC
Stepping in when justice goes wrong: BBC Four pays tribute to the campaigning team at Rough Justice. Read more : OU on the BBC: Justice: Timeshift - Retrial By Television
OU on the BBC: Justice: Justice with Michael Sandel
The Open University
Michael Sandel takes a lively look at some of the moral questions surrounding our ideas of justice. Read more : OU on the BBC: Justice: Justice with Michael Sandel
OU on the BBC: Justice: Fairness And The Big Society
BBC
Michael Sandel takes on the idea of fairness, and asks how it might apply to David Cameron's Big Society. Read more : OU on the BBC: Justice: Fairness And The Big Society
OU on the BBC: Justice: A Citizen's Guide To The 21st Century
BBC
Michael Sandel explores justice from a philosophical angle - are there absolute rights and wrongs, and what can Bentham, Kant and Aristotle teach us? Read more : OU on the BBC: Justice: A Citizen's Guide To The 21st Century
Justice Season on the BBC
Read more about the Justice Season on the BBC Read more : Justice Season on the BBC
![Polling Station signage [Image: kagey b under CC-BY-NC-ND licence]](/openlearn/files/ole/ole_images/places/general-urban-scenes/polling-station-sign/polling station sign_0_0.jpg)
Login or Register to post comments
Cannabis Trial
I agree very poor evidence for prosecution so many of these facts could easily have been checked.
Medical reports, internet activities etc.
The lawyers did not seek out
The lawyers did not seek out evidence to support:
* claim of 'back injury'; whether or not his Dr could confirm pain relief
* whether or not the list data was fantasy football names and scores or were in fact contacts for selling drugs
there was no evidence of actual supplying of drugs to another person
even though there was cause for concern.
Evidence is so difficult and even when true people can manipulate it and present it in ways that are unfair and injustice results.
This not only happens in courts but happens quite often in industrial tribunals, internal investigations and the like - they are often undertaken by bigoted and biased people so no surprise there then !!!!
Whats your verdict
i took part in it and got it right however there was some argument on both sides the prosecution could of argued that he wouldn't need a sandwich unless he was driving all day or out all day but he as a bad back so wouldnt be able to do that and he might be on other benefits like dla so why isn't he?however because he didnt have anymore paraphernalia like scales or they was not ready wrapped it could of gone either way
Got the vedict right. It
Got the vedict right. It could have been argued that he didn't need to keep the sandwich bags in the car, the kitchen would be the most likely place for those. Who takes sandwixh bags out with them? Also the note book would have most probably been kept at home. Most importantly phone numbers are totally differnt from football scores.
Poor representation bty defence.
It should have been stressed more that proof beyond doubt was needed to convict the defendant. If there was any doubt at all, however small, the jury had an obligation to return a not guilty verdict. The defence should have argued thus : That there was doubt as to whether the bags were to be used for drug deals, as there was no drug in them at the time, the size of the bag was also at odds with the size often used as drug paraphanalia. Where were the bags found in relation to the drugs / driver.? There was no proof that any of the details in the note book corresponded to the names ,addresses or telephone numbers of any person known to the police to have any connection with drugs. The defendant's computer would have provided evidence of his online gaming, yet it was not checked, again suggesting that the investigation was not thorough and further throwing doubt as to the allegation.
Again, reasonable doubt means NOT GUILTY.
( I should add at this time, that my personal opinion is that convicted drug dealers should face the rope. If this were a real case, it clearly demonstrates shoddy work by the legal system and just how uneducated the general public are. )
These responses are really
These responses are really interesting. In fact, there is no "right" or "wrong" verdict here as the outcome changes depending on your answers as you proceed through this interactive.
When I co-wrote the script for this I deliberately wanted to leave some issues as vague ones so that people could interpret them in different ways. Obviously in a real trial many of the factual issues would have been clarified beforehand, e.g. medical evidence of back pain, checking the list of contacts in the notebook.
The purpose of this exercise was to look at what sort of facts affect "justice" and there is more than one outcome to this depending on which answers you choose.
I am glad that you have taken the time to participate in this.
Peter Ward