Friday, 20 February 2009

Holding The Court In Contempt…

A Harry Potter actor who was fatally stabbed did not smash a bottle over the head of his alleged killer, the Old Bailey has been told.

Tarik Ozresberoglu said Rob Knox, 18, was "unarmed" and confronted accused killer Karl Bishop "like a man".
Looks like the killer is planning one of those Harperson-mandated ‘killer in fear’ defences
Giving evidence Mr Ozresberoglu said he had tried to hold his friend back when the row began.

Responding to a suggestion from Ian Bourne, QC, that the actor had smashed a bottle over Mr Bishop's head, he said: "He went over there like a man, with nothing in his hand, not with knives.

"He (Mr Bishop) did everything. Everyone that got stabbed, he did it," Mr Ozresberoglu said.
Mr Ozresberoglu must be the kind of witness prosecutors love. Defence, not so much…
Then turning to Mr Bourne he said: "I don't know how you can defend him, a criminal.

"I'd rather be a dustman, a man's job, than do what you do."

He added: "Look at him there laughing, that clown over there, absolute clown."
Oh, oh! The judge wasn’t about to let that stand – all that stuff about ‘the truth, the whole truth..’ wasn’t meant to apply to the court staff themselves, obviously:
Mr Justice Bean warned Mr Ozresberoglu that he could be taken down to the court cells adding that the barrister was "doing his job".
Well, yes. I rather think that’s the point Mr Ozresberoglu was making.

11 comments:

ranter said...

Hopefully there will be a GUILTY verdict and then the accused's long, long 'PREVIOUS' will be made public to the court.

I'm sure Richardson has had cautions, reprimands, warnings, community sentences, probation etc etc, probably failed to comply with any of these and yet no sanctions were ever applied.

It will again illustrate how failing to deal effectively and properly with criminal behaviour at the outset leads to such pointless deaths, deaths which could have been avoided had the system been 'fit for purpose'. As ever, amidst all their protestation of working within the law and simply 'doing their jobs' the only people profiting are the lawyers.

As the New York City police initiatives under Bill Bratton proved 'Zero Tolerance' of intimidating beggars prevents murders a few years later. But then the US justice system and all its agencies work together and noy against each other. They also have '3 strikes and you're out' - of circulation for 25 years.

Nick von Mises said...

I haven't been able to find a photo of this murderer online. I suspect it's because it will show what he looks like. Which might imply a certain demographic.

Have you found one?

Oldrightie said...

Which might imply a certain demographic.

-------------
That'll be The Labour made super-underclass then!

dmc said...

Great,if only other people stood up and said the same.Isn't it illegal to defend someone you know to be guilty.

Von Spreuth. said...

DMC. But it is also illegal for a barrister to refuse a case.

Catch 22.

Von Brandenburg-Preußen.

Von Spreuth said...

And how would you ever proove it?

vBP

dmc said...

damn.Is there no way round it.

JuliaM said...

"It will again illustrate how failing to deal effectively and properly with criminal behaviour at the outset leads to such pointless deaths, deaths which could have been avoided had the system been 'fit for purpose'.."

I fear you're right...

"Have you found one?"

Nope. But DumbJon did, albeit briefly...

"damn.Is there no way round it."

Well, Shakepeare had an idea once... ;)

an ex-apprentice said...

Von Spreuth. said...
DMC. But it is also illegal for a barrister to refuse a case.

If the Barrister knew his client was guilty, he would advise that he should plead guilty. Faced with a refusal, he could tell a judge that he felt unable to properly represent his clients interests and ask that other council be appointed.

Anonymous said...

some of the victim went on record talking to ultra right wing political groups. Can the accused use this as a racially motivated crime? Perhaps plead he was mentally unstable because of the way others behaved with him?

Anonymous said...

It's a pity that most of the posters on here don't seem to know the facts of the case. The accused's barrister did indeed tell the jury about his client's previous offences, including a prison term served for knife crimes. This information did not have to be diclosed until after the verdict, but his barrister chose to make it public.

The accused's barrister was well aware that his client was guilty of stabbing the victims, but it is for the jury to decide whether the two brutal beatings by the deceased and his entourage, and the final confrontation of him by up to 20 youths, can lead to a verdict of self-defence.

Contrary to the suggestion that the outburst in court by one of the victims was a prosecutor's dream, I would suggest, from my position in the spectator's gallery, that it only proved to demonstrate that the witness was a loud-mouthed yob, who, had he and his friends not acted in a similar way on the night in question, may not have become a victim.