Talk:R v Wallace
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Mandatory death sentence[edit]
Can we have a reference for death sentence being mandatory? I know this is a bit like original research but in a general discussion of "unsupportable verdict of guilty" Lord Devlin in his book "Trial by Jury" (1966 edition, at page 80) says "although the judge is bound to leave the case to the jury and accept their verdict, he need not enter judgement upon an improper verdict or pass sentence. The simple way of dealing with the situation ... is for the judge to postpone sentence, grant bail to the prisoner and give him a certificate of fitness to appeal." He wasn't talking about this case, but it does suggest that the trial judge had some discretion. - Pointillist (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Did Devlin give a single example of this ever happening in a capital case, or at least since 1907 and the establishment of the Court of Criminal Appeal? RodCrosby (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, the ellipsis was ", now that there is a Court of Criminal Appeal,". Lord Devlin uses R v. Dollery (1911) 6 Cr.App.R. 255 as an example. This is in the section "Unsupportable Verdict of Guilty" on pp79-83 of Trial by Jury (PDF pages 91-94 here). It isn't a capital case, but I don't see why that should affect the principle that the judge has discretion to postpone sentence and grant a certificate for appeal. What do you think? - Pointillist (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think you are are "dancing on the head of a pin" here. The link makes it clear that it would be theoretically possible for a Judge to disregard a verdict of Guilty only if he had in fact directed the Jury to return a verdict of Not Guilty. How this applies to the Wallace case or the death penalty in general, I can't see. There are countless references, even in Wikipedia, to the "mandatory" death sentence for murder, and Judges often made this explicit in their sentencing "..., the jury have found you guilty of the crime of murder, for which the law of this country provides only one sentence..." RodCrosby (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Believe me, I have no intention of playing games. As it stands, the article says "The trial judge, Mr. Justice Wright, summed up for an acquittal.... There was general surprise when, after an hour's deliberation, the jury returned with a verdict of guilty. Mr. Justice Wright, after pointedly omitting the customary thanks to the jury, passed the mandatory[dubious – discuss] sentence of death on William Herbert Wallace." I think what you are saying is that the judge, if he passed sentence after verdict of guilty of murder, was required to pass the death sentence. Well, I agree with that. Any other sentence would be ridiculous anyway: what judge would say "the evidence against you has not been proven so I sentence you to only 15 years hard labour instead of death." The point is that per Devlin's opinion, the 1907 Act and the 1911 case, the judge did not have to pass any sentence so the word "mandatory" is misleading in this context. How about we just strike the word "mandatory" and shake hands on the deal? - Pointillist (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- There is a difference between "summing up for an acquittal" and "directing the jury to return a verdict of Not Guilty", is there not? I still don't get your point. RodCrosby (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- My point is that "mandatory" is misleading, in that it suggests the judge had no choice but to pass sentence. I would prefer to remove that one word, so the sentence reads: "Mr. Justice Wright, after pointedly omitting the customary thanks to the jury, passed the sentence of death on William Herbert Wallace." That much is fact. I would also recommend that "for an acquittal" is removed in "The trial judge, Mr. Justice Wright, summed up for an acquittal:". If you disagree, just say so once more and I will desist. - Pointillist (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- There is a difference between "summing up for an acquittal" and "directing the jury to return a verdict of Not Guilty", is there not? I still don't get your point. RodCrosby (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Believe me, I have no intention of playing games. As it stands, the article says "The trial judge, Mr. Justice Wright, summed up for an acquittal.... There was general surprise when, after an hour's deliberation, the jury returned with a verdict of guilty. Mr. Justice Wright, after pointedly omitting the customary thanks to the jury, passed the mandatory[dubious – discuss] sentence of death on William Herbert Wallace." I think what you are saying is that the judge, if he passed sentence after verdict of guilty of murder, was required to pass the death sentence. Well, I agree with that. Any other sentence would be ridiculous anyway: what judge would say "the evidence against you has not been proven so I sentence you to only 15 years hard labour instead of death." The point is that per Devlin's opinion, the 1907 Act and the 1911 case, the judge did not have to pass any sentence so the word "mandatory" is misleading in this context. How about we just strike the word "mandatory" and shake hands on the deal? - Pointillist (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think you are are "dancing on the head of a pin" here. The link makes it clear that it would be theoretically possible for a Judge to disregard a verdict of Guilty only if he had in fact directed the Jury to return a verdict of Not Guilty. How this applies to the Wallace case or the death penalty in general, I can't see. There are countless references, even in Wikipedia, to the "mandatory" death sentence for murder, and Judges often made this explicit in their sentencing "..., the jury have found you guilty of the crime of murder, for which the law of this country provides only one sentence..." RodCrosby (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, the ellipsis was ", now that there is a Court of Criminal Appeal,". Lord Devlin uses R v. Dollery (1911) 6 Cr.App.R. 255 as an example. This is in the section "Unsupportable Verdict of Guilty" on pp79-83 of Trial by Jury (PDF pages 91-94 here). It isn't a capital case, but I don't see why that should affect the principle that the judge has discretion to postpone sentence and grant a certificate for appeal. What do you think? - Pointillist (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Mossley Hill or Allerton?[edit]
All references I can find state Mossley Hill, although it is near Allerton. Was that factually wrong, or was it Mossley Hill in 1931, but is now Allerton? RodCrosby (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Unsourced, italic statements[edit]
What's with the unsourced statements in italics and parenthesis? I haven't read any of the literature on the subject, so could somebody please add citations if the statements are legitimate, or remove them if they're not. 74.76.128.250 (talk) 02:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)