Not exact matches
«If the news account is correct, then it sounds like the
defendants are
clearly not
guilty.
``... The only way in which the
defendants could be made liable for the loss of articles awaiting their turn to be washed would, I think, quite
clearly be if it could be shown that they had been
guilty of negligence in performing their duty of care of the goods.»
The jury had the choice of convicting of the worse offence, or letting the
defendant go free (even though he was quite
clearly guilty of the lesser offence).
I think it would be fair if both the judge would be allowed to include the lesser offence (to avoid a
guilty person walking free), and for the defence as well (to prevent the
defendant from unfairly being found
guilty of the worse charge because the jury doesn't want him to go free when he is
clearly guilty).