James Forbes, Bicknell and Vaz case, I am puzzled !

The judge has ruled and I have accepted the ruling, but I have a legal question I would love to get answered.

How is it that the man who allegedly offered the cop a bribe be found not guilty and the man who (according to the court), who attempted to pervert the course of justice found not guilty.

Follow me for a second.

Let’s say I was accused of committing a crime and I asked you to help me cover up or get rid of crime.

If the court rule that I have no case to answer by virtue of the evidence that was presented, in essence I am not guilty,then by virtue of that, the case against you should be  dismissed.

Resident Magistrate Stephanie Haisley-Jackson Friday morning ruled that businessman Bruce Bicknell was free of a charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice. ( Jamaica Observer, Feb 21, 2014)

That being said, if the main culprit in the case has no case to answer in perverting the course of justice, how could the persons who was said to be “assisting” be found guilty of perverting the course of justice.

Unless it is being said that Bicknell by virtue of his stature could not have attempted to pervert the course of justice ie he could not influence the outcome of his case given the matter was in the hands of the police and he was not a cop, a lawyer or a judge ie he was not part of the legal system so could not exert any influence on the system.

We are told that Bicknell still has a case to answer as it relates to corruption charges ie offering the cop a bribe , given it was said he offered the cop a bribe and that is corruption.

Here is the kicker and here is were I am totally lost in the legal world.

I would have thought that one would first need to establish that a crime was committed in the case of the bribe. By this  I mean, would not one want to first  establish that  corruption  did in fact take place and then the having obtained a guilty verdict, then you move to the matter of “perverting” the course of justice?

I would have thought that you must first established via the courts that a crime had been committed when Bicknell allegedly offered the cop a bribe. Having therefore  established that a crime had indeed been committed by a guilty verdict for Bicknell, the others who were attempting to preventing the law from taking its course ie perverting the course of justice, would then be brought before the courts and tried for that matter ?

What am I missing therefore?

If James Forbes is guilty of attempting to pervert the course of justice ( well he was found guilty), then it must be that Bruce Bicknell is guilty of committing a crime and in fact offered the cop a bribe over the speeding ticket.

If Bruce Bicknell did not commit a crime ie acted corruptly in offering the cop $2,000 , then James Forbes could not have attempted to pervert the course of justice given the fact that no crime was committed in the first instance .

Am I making any sense here , or it’s too complicated.  I would love to hear from a legal mind on this one even if that person is anonymous .

If  crime has not been committed, then  one cannot attempt to pervert the course of justice. If one has been convicted of perverting the course of justice, then by deduction, it must be reasoned that a crime must have first be committed in the first instance and that determination must have come via a court of law ie the court.

The funny thing is that case has not yet been concluded !

Still confused, well some am I 😦

Advertisements

5 Responses

  1. Let us assume for a minute that an individual (Jerry) was charged for murder and awaiting trial for the murder charge. While out on bail, Jerry’s brother, Tom, tries to intimidate a witness in his brother’s murder case. The Witness reported the matter to the Police and Tom was arrested and tried for perverting the course of justice (Witness Tampering). Tom was tried and found guilty and sent to prison for 10 years.

    Tom’s brother, Jerry was later tried on the murder charge, but the main witness in the case, decided that it was not in his best interest to testify at Jerry’s Murder trial and the case fell apart, and Jerry told he no longer had a case to answer and the prosecution would drop all charges against Jerry.

    Given the above scenario, should Tom be set free because Jerry was not prosecuted for the murder charge? Did Tom committ the act of witness tampering and found guilty of a crime? The facts are, they are two separate and distinct events. One thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other from a legal standpoint. Each crime can stand on its own merits.

    In the case of Bricknell, he wasn’t (actively) involved in the coverup, hence not guilty! The other two were active and willing participants. You are not confused, you are just looking for a red herring to bolster your earlier assertions that the Police Officer wasn’t guilty of a crime. It is amazing how devious you can be when you seek to deceive.

    • Beautifully explained. Long and short of the matter Forbes did a criminal act in intervening in the governments case. He should have left it alone.

  2. You just deduce logically that Bruce Bicknel will be found guilty as charged. It’s a done deal. You made a good point about which case logically should be tried first, but then again you can work from back to front too. The court does not have to determine that a crime is committed for one to be committed. Crimes are committed all the time without a case being brought before the court.

  3. I am not sure why them try Vaz,, Bicknell and Forbes in separate trials. Suppose Bicknell testify in his trial that it was all Forbes fault, and Forbes was the mastermind etc. The fact that Forbes is tried before them, nothing in the subsequent trials can affect him.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: