Daniel Khalife has pleaded not guilty to escaping from prison! Presumably his defence will be that he was abducted by aliens!
These blooming lookalikes are getting everywhere.
Ah - good point! :yay: :yay: :yay:
[2080]
Can't wait to hear what his barrister has to say.
Nothing that will count I feel. Probably a load of ideological spouting about not respecting the regime (UK Gov) who have no right to imprison him etc.
Quite how you defend someone who's in the dock in a Criminal court, rather than where he should be (Nic) by self arrangement, seems impossible. Expect the fee will be not bad but wouldn't expect any 'refreshers', beyond the first 30 mins!
A complete waste of time and money, except for the snowflake wokes of course, who in this case worship 'due procedure' as he's one of theirs!
Pity that the judge won't be allowed to play some Mantovani in the background to accompany the plea!
Daniel who?
You couldn't make it up!
that's what I thouht- but it's true :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:
The law needs to be changed so that the courts can impose a sentence for a frivolous 'not guilty' plea.
The plea has been added onto the plea for the other charges, so is unlikely to take much court time as he'll be tried for all of them in one case. I'd imagine that the jury will dismiss this specific plea out of hand. Indeed, the obvious contempt of making it will have done him no favours in relation to any chance of clemency in sentencing of the other charges, assuming he is found guilty (of course).
The fun would be if he were acquitted of the other charges and convicted of escaping.
Quote from: klondike on September 22, 2023, 08:52:27 AMThe fun would be if he were acquitted of the other charges and convicted of escaping.
And is given a full life term because of it 😬
bring it on!
....but, members of the jury, you have heard my learned friend explain that my client was not in prison, he was merely remanded in custody, and therefore it would be impossible to escape until sentence has been passed! And yet, ladies and gentlemen, you have not yet even retired to consider your verdict....
He is charged with escaping from lawful custody. So, my learned friend, get your facts right; put that in your pipe and smoke it. I direct the jury to find him guilty as charged.
Next....
I er, that is, ehm, the defence rests m'lud.
He could maybe use the insanity defence. Anybody who, with 100% certainty, did a runner from jail who pleads not guilty must surely stand a chance.
Thank you. Where's my black cloth hat?....
Got it.
Khalife, you moron, stand up.
Under the 1913 mental deficiency act, you are sentenced to hang by the testicles until you are dead. This sentence to be carried out at the earliest opportunity which, by my reckoning, should be after my afternoon cream tea at 4pm and before The Chase.
Take the cretin down, and then string him up.
(https://i.postimg.cc/66Dw8t4J/IMG-0793.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/Hj4FKGtB)
like it!
Quote from: Diasi on September 22, 2023, 06:52:12 AMThe law needs to be changed so that the courts can impose a sentence for a frivolous 'not guilty' plea.
It does exist and results in many pathetic affidavits failing to get through. These failed litigants become known as 'vexatious litigants' and appear on a list within the public domain.
This rubbish is incited by the present day buffoons at the DPP running scared of implied unfairness and lack of diversity.
However the wretched ungodly
(accused) in this case has entered this common plea in response to this 'escape' allegation and more importantly the other levelled charges upon which he was detained without bail. His argument will be that if he's found
'not guilty' to the original charges, axiomatically he's therefore not guilty to the tertiary charge of escaping detention. This presumption is wrong in that escaping prior to trial is an offence in itself!
However the difference here is that under the Criminal Law Act 1967
CHAPTER 58 his case and
plea entered must still be heard.If he's found guilty to the other charges, the Judge can suggest his plea to
'not guilty' to escape is felonious and therefore changed to
'guilty as charged'. The implication to the defendant is that this change of plea will be reflected in mitigation prior to sentencing. So his defence have probably directed this plea hoping for
'judicial clemency'.
Quote from: Cassandra on September 22, 2023, 03:48:01 PMIt does exist and results in many pathetic affidavits failing to get through. These failed litigants become known as 'vexatious litigants' and appear on a list within the public domain.
This rubbish is incited by the present day buffoons at the DPP running scared of implied unfairness and lack of diversity.
However the wretched ungodly (accused) in this case has entered this common plea in response to this 'escape' allegation and more importantly the other levelled charges upon which he was detained without bail. His argument will be that if he's found 'not guilty' to the original charges, axiomatically he's therefore not guilty to the tertiary charge of escaping detention. This presumption is wrong in that escaping prior to trial is an offence in itself!
However the difference here is that under the Criminal Law Act 1967 CHAPTER 58 his case and plea entered must still be heard.
If he's found guilty to the other charges, the Judge can suggest his plea to 'not guilty' to escape is felonious and therefore changed to 'guilty as charged'. The implication to the defendant is that this change of plea will be reflected in mitigation prior to sentencing. So his defence have probably directed this plea hoping for 'judicial clemency'.
Thanks for the excellent explanation.
Thanks Cassandra. One would have thought that any judge would see right through the cynical attempt of mitigation and sentence more harshly.
one can but hope