Help me out here. Hunt trial: Day 6

2 May 2012

This is a case I have been following, I am confused by the highlighted part below, can any one shed some light for me please?
Hunt trial: Day 6
Published on Monday 30 April 2012 17:21
FOUR out of 11 charges have been withdrawn in the Crawley and Horsham Hunt court case.
Henry James Hawksfield, 59, of Bines Road, Partridge Green, Rachael Holdsworth, 47, of Rock Road, Washington, Neill Millard, 45, of Dragons Lane, Shipley, and Andrew Phillis, 50, of Halwell, Totnes, Devon, have pleaded not guilty to offences under the Hunting Act 2004.
With the prosecution case finished, prosecutor Walton Hornsby said he would withdraw
four of the counts because the evidence supporting them was not strong enough.
Defence barrister David Perry QC went through the evidence for the remaining seven charges, asking the judge to drop them under a ‘no case to answer’ ruling.
He said much of the prosecution evidence was circumstantial, or from eyewitnesses who had made assumptions based on what they had heard, or the general impression they had of what was happening.
“On all the occasions with which we’re concerned, the hunt was aware that filming was taking place, and that suggests that it’s implausible to contend that they would, knowing that their activities were being filmed, hunt,” he concluded.
Mr Hornsby accepted that some of the evidence was circumstantial, but said it is ‘perfectly reasonable’ for the court to draw common sense conclusions from such evidence.

The case was adjourned until Tuesday, to give the judge time to review the evidence.

It is the last comment by the prosecution, Mr Hornsby, that bothers me. A common sense conclusion, is this how the law works?
Wed 2nd May
Day 4
Day 3
Day 2

2 May 2012

Yes
Dave_Notts

2 May 2012

Quote by Dave__Notts
Yes
Dave_Notts

:rotflmao:

3 May 2012

Mr Hornsby accepted that some of the evidence was circumstantial, but said it is ‘perfectly reasonable’ for the court to draw common sense conclusions from such evidence.
Yes, this is the way the law works. A court should draw reasoned conclusions from circumstantial evidence.
If Jack's fingerprints are on the 'smoking gun' (circumstantial evidence) it doesn't prove that Jack actually 'fired the shot'. If nobody else's finger prints are on the gun, and it is known that the 'gun' was at no point in the possession of any other person, then it may be reasonable for a court to conclude that Jack 'fired the shot'.
As opposed to if Jill makes a statement that she saw Jack fire the gun this would be, assuming that the court considered Jill a credible witness, direct evidence.

3 May 2012

I have to admit surprise on my part. :shock:
I will happily admit to not having a legal mind
I was always under the impression that to convict one had to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt
How can one be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, by circumstantial evidence and making assumptions dunno

The defence summed up by arguing that in none of the remaining 6 charges had evidence of the necessary elements for conviction, i.e. the deliberate pursuit of an identified mammal, been proved to the necessary standard. It was simply not possible to 'fill the gaps' by making assumptions based on the presence of terriers, the lack of evidence of trail laying and Professor Harris' opinions as the prosecution suggested.

3 May 2012

Quote by Dave__Notts
Yes
Dave_Notts

3 May 2012

Quote by Robert400andKay
Mr Hornsby accepted that some of the evidence was circumstantial, but said it is ‘perfectly reasonable’ for the court to draw common sense conclusions from such evidence.

Yes, this is the way the law works. A court should draw reasoned conclusions from circumstantial evidence.
If Jack's fingerprints are on the 'smoking gun' (circumstantial evidence) it doesn't prove that Jack actually 'fired the shot'. If nobody else's finger prints are on the gun, and it is known that the 'gun' was at no point in the possession of any other person, then it may be reasonable for a court to conclude that Jack 'fired the shot'.
As opposed to if Jill makes a statement that she saw Jack fire the gun this would be, assuming that the court considered Jill a credible witness, direct evidence.

Thank you