Found Deceased UK - Libby Squire, 21, last seen outside Welly club, Hull, 31 Jan 2019 #17 *ARREST*

[Niner]

No date yet for the hearing in March? TIA!

 

[mrjitty]

It's not a lie to ask "could x have happened instead of y?". If that is the instruction given by the defendent it has to be followed by the defense counsel and can be put to witnesses who have agreed to appear and have been prepared by the CPS as to the line of questioning that could be taken.

We need to be careful in this area

Counsel is not allowed to act as a sock puppet for the accused and introduce a version without any evidential foundation. Nor can counsel engage in wild speculation.

Of course Counsel often step over the mark in this area, but if the defence wish to argue a positive version it needs to have at least some evidential basis.

You'd imagine what they are going to speculate is maybe Libby wandered off and jumped in the river.

 

[JosieJo]

We need to be careful in this area

Counsel is not allowed to act as a sock puppet for the accused and introduce a version without any evidential foundation. Nor can counsel engage in wild speculation.

Of course Counsel often step over the mark in this area, but if the defence wish to argue a positive version it needs to have at least some evidential basis.

You'd imagine what they are going to speculate is maybe Libby wandered off and jumped in the river.

I also think if PR goes not guilty he will likely go down the route of her being left alone in the park ...maybe go down the route of refusing to leave the park with him to the "safety" of the street

 

[Newthoughts]

Given the strange story his sister gave to the press I also think he'll try the story of leaving her unharmed. If forensics allows.

If it doesn't you're left with escaping from one convinced sexual deviant - described as dangerous by a judge - and meeting another dangerous individual in a freezing cold lonely park

Let's hope he pleads guilty

 

[jamjim]

No date yet for the hearing in March? TIA!

Still no date yet Niner, all news articles still just stating March in general!

"I have made various orders for things to happen between now and then, and there will be a further hearing in this case at some point in March 2020. There may be another hearing before that but at the moment the next time you will be brought back to court will be in March."

Everything said during Libby Squire murder court case today

 

[Niner]

Thanks a bunch for the info [bjamjim[/b]!

 

[mrjitty]

I also think if PR goes not guilty he will likely go down the route of her being left alone in the park ...maybe go down the route of refusing to leave the park with him to the "safety" of the street

A lot will depend on what statements he initially made to the police.

Assuming he made some, those will be presented in Court, so likely he will be tied to whatever version he advanced at the time.

My guess is that it will be he dropped her off somewhere in the car.

 

[JosieJo]

A lot will depend on what statements he initially made to the police.

Assuming he made some, those will be presented in Court, so likely he will be tied to whatever version he advanced at the time.

My guess is that it will be he dropped her off somewhere in the car.

Yes that's my thinking...I think he did admit picking her up from day 1 and stated he left her alive...he may have said they were in the park though because of the overnight forensics on the bench

I think the police really struggled to find evidence to disprove his version of events and if he is guilty of murder I hope they have since found it .. I'd imagine so if the CPS have sought the charge

I wonder if they are allowing his convictions as evidence?

 

[tresir2012]

Yes that's my thinking...I think he did admit picking her up from day 1 and stated he left her alive...he may have said they were in the park though because of the overnight forensics on the bench

I think the police really struggled to find evidence to disprove his version of events and if he is guilty of murder I hope they have since found it .. I'd imagine so if the CPS have sought the charge

I wonder if they are allowing his convictions as evidence?

I don't think prior convictions are generally brought up till sentencing are they?

 

[Caroclaud]

A 5 week trial is very long for 1 defendant, makes me think there is a lot of defence material to get through, I don’t think this seems very straightforward or necessarily clear cut at all.

 

[JosieJo]

I don't think prior convictions are generally brought up till sentencing are they?

Really not sure ?

 

[Audiohoney]

Really not sure ?

I’m unsure on this too?
Is it a blanket rule that states prior convictions are not permitted in court due to their potential to prejudice a case?
In a case like this, surely it’s extremely relevant as it shares with the jury the character traits the defendant had been displaying in the lead up to Libby’s disappearance.
If I was a juror and the evidence was not clear cut and I found him innocent as a result - because I couldn’t be 100% certain - then I subsequently found out about his previous offences, I’d feel pretty mortified. Hearing about those prior charges would lead me to think I’d most probably made the wrong decision.

 

[JosieJo]

It's a difficult one imo ... if past convictions are used it makes it very very difficult not to look at the evidence subjectively... but may also be very relevant...I'm hoping they have clear evidence apart from his past crimes

 

[Miss_French]

A 5 week trial is very long for 1 defendant, makes me think there is a lot of defence material to get through, I don’t think this seems very straightforward or necessarily clear cut at all.

One defendent, 2 charges.

 

[Newthoughts]

A 5 week trial is very long for 1 defendant, makes me think there is a lot of defence material to get through, I don’t think this seems very straightforward or necessarily clear cut at all.

One defendent, 2 charges.

One defendent, two charges AND at least 1 interpreter for the defendent and possibly some of the witnesses.

Then there are search experts phone records, phone locations, possibly his internet search history, CCTV and ANPR, pathologists reports, DNA analysis of every piece of evidence the Police picked up (they took bags of stuff from his house remember), analysis of the Flora of the river and estuary, witness statements (if there was one report of screams to MSM it's likely there were others that didn't go to the press and of course there will be witnesses to what he did afterwards that could be suspicious - for example did he have a bonfire) plus defence cross examination of each.

Five weeks doesn't sound very long to me.

 

[Sarahlou]

5 weeks sounds about right to me. Trials take time. The Grace Millane trial is going on for that length too.

 

[Amonet]

It's a difficult one imo ... if past convictions are used it makes it very very difficult not to look at the evidence subjectively... but may also be very relevant...I'm hoping they have clear evidence apart from his past crimes

I remember one case where former, and similar, charges, against a defendant weren't allowed in court, but they hadn't resulted in convictions and so therefore would have been unduly prejudicial.

In PR's case, he's actually been convicted of sex-related crimes close to the time of this attack. It's not just charges against him that might go back 20 years and were dropped or didn't result in conviction.

So I'm not convinced they won't be allowed to be brought up in court...

 

[mrjitty]

I’m unsure on this too?
Is it a blanket rule that states prior convictions are not permitted in court due to their potential to prejudice a case?
In a case like this, surely it’s extremely relevant as it shares with the jury the character traits the defendant had been displaying in the lead up to Libby’s disappearance.
If I was a juror and the evidence was not clear cut and I found him innocent as a result - because I couldn’t be 100% certain - then I subsequently found out about his previous offences, I’d feel pretty mortified. Hearing about those prior charges would lead me to think I’d most probably made the wrong decision.

The rule against propensity evidence means generally evidence of prior misconduct cannot be presented.

The risk is that the jury thinks "he is the type of person who would do this crime". So we don't allow it as a rule.

However, so called Similar Fact Evidence is allowed, where the probative value outweighs the potential prejudice. The area is quite complicated and calls for careful analysis from the Judge.

IIRC it is not enough for the Crown to claim "he did this sex offending therefore he likely also did this sex murder"

You need to show a similarity or signature in the detail of the offending

So something i was wondering about is the priors show a pattern of lurking around the neighbourhood at night for opportunistic offending. So maybe the Crown can argue that the priors illustrate an intent that night - he was lurking looking for an opportunity. The problem with that is the priors are completely different in terms of the type of offending.

So without more, I suspect they can't be raised.

 

[mrjitty]

I remember one case where former, and similar, charges, against a defendant weren't allowed in court, but they hadn't resulted in convictions and so therefore would have been unduly prejudicial.

In PR's case, he's actually been convicted of sex-related crimes close to the time of this attack. It's not just charges against him that might go back 20 years and were dropped or didn't result in conviction.

So I'm not convinced they won't be allowed to be brought up in court...

NZ has a very famous case where 3 police officers were charged with a very serious pack rape of a young girl back in the 80s. All three were found not guilty.

After trial it emerged two of the defendants were already in jail for a different group rape.

The prior convictions were suppressed because the Judge felt the circumstances of the offending were too different to be relevant, but raised the real risk of prejudice. i.e these men have raped before therefore they are serial rapists.

I have never been sure it was correct myself.

 

[JosieJo]

The rule against propensity evidence means generally evidence of prior misconduct cannot be presented.

The risk is that the jury thinks "he is the type of person who would do this crime". So we don't allow it as a rule.

However, so called Similar Fact Evidence is allowed, where the probative value outweighs the potential prejudice. The area is quite complicated and calls for careful analysis from the Judge.

IIRC it is not enough for the Crown to claim "he did this sex offending therefore he likely also did this sex murder"

You need to show a similarity or signature in the detail of the offending

So something i was wondering about is the priors show a pattern of lurking around the neighbourhood at night for opportunistic offending. So maybe the Crown can argue that the priors illustrate an intent that night - he was lurking looking for an opportunity. The problem with that is the priors are completely different in terms of the type of offending.

So without more, I suspect they can't be raised.

Thanks ...so it may be the case that because his convictions never included physical violence or rape they may be more of a prejudice than a similarity??

Though I suppose there could be other witnesses not relevant to his past convictions to show some of these traits

I do think it very difficult though even in Sheffield the jury will not know about his past crimes.. it would just take one to know and discuss or just one to ignore the no Google rule