This is an absolutely fantastic series, Now i understand why my mother would take time out of her day to watch this. Thank you so much for inviting me down memory lane by sharing these episodes with us all! Life seemed so much simpler and happier in the 70's and 80's!
actor GeoffreyKeen as defence QC, must be one of the most believable courtpersons ever seen. it's as if he has been attending court for years, amazing acting
I have worked retail at the luxury end of the market and I have encountered lots of wealthy and privileged people who we had to keep an eye on. Some of them steal for fun, some out of contempt for staff and some because they deal in such large sums of money that the matter of £50 or £100 doesn't seem enough to them to bother actually paying. They would be confused when asked to pay for something they were walking out with, as if it were a petty formality they thought wasn't important.
People like her do exist. Back in 1987, I held the door open for Sara Keays at a department store similar to the one described in this case. Her claim to "fame" was that, as secretary to Secretary of State for Transport Cecil Parkinson (Con), she became his mistress and had his child - a child he never met in person. This dowdy woman swept into the store without thanking me - so I said it for her (standard MO with rude people). I think my g/f at the time said something robust to Keays' back too. 😂 Goodness knows what this woman's motive for theft was - laziness, arrogance, personality defect - but she was intolerable, and guilty to boot!
I always sat and watched this amazing series with my Mother, back in the 1970’s the program was aired on a weekday, early afternoon,close to lunchtime.
The jury clearly influenced by her status and not the clear evidence. A sign of the times this was produced. But, definitely guilty - so your revised ending was highly satisfying!
I concur with the latter verdict. Lady Dyson was guilty of stealing, her state of mind at the time was merely mitigating circumstances that the judge could deal with as it pleased him.
In his summing up, defence counsel asks why Lady Wotsit would steal goods to the value of £120 when she had £300 in her bag. As a young man, I was a juror on a (real) trial in which a similar question was asked, also by defence counsel. Prosecution counsel had already anticipated this rhetorical question, and had provided the simple answer: "greed".
@@davidstuckey9289 As a matter of fact, no. The defendants were two Arabs accused of defrauding the NHS of £15K, a sum of money which was clearly a trifling amount to them. They were both found guilty. The details stick in my mind to this day, 40 years on.
Great episode with a great ending. Thanks Jez 👍🏼. Actually, I think I can honestly say that this is my favourite story so far. It's the fact that I love Maggie Steed lol..
I hated Crown Court when I was a kid (maybe I'm a bit younger than you...or was just too young to appreciate it!) Only ever saw it when I was skiving off school, lol. Not too ill to sneak downstairs to watch TV!) 😄 Love it now though 😊
Jez....thanks for uploading all of these. Fantastic. Takes me back to popping home from school for lunch. Brilliant series that stands up well. Re this episode, the jury foreperson all but tugged a forelock as he delivered the verdict.
Don't know how some of you here think she was set up. If you leave a store with items in your possession that have not been paid for or charged to your account it is considered as stealing. She should have been found guilty.
To commit theft you need to take something with the intention of depriving its owner of it permanently. The intention is the important thing. Leaving without paying isn't necessarily theft. People sometimes fail to pay because they are ill or absent minded. www.britannica.com/topic/theft
I think this episode was influenced by the real case of Lady Isobel Barnett whom suffered early dementia and stole from a local crappy shop. The owner told the police. She later committed suicide days her court appearance. She electrocuted herself in the bath. Lady Barnett was a tv personality in the 1960s. Poor woman RIP. What is strange about this episode is what are there are two alternative endings? Surely the Jury selected from the public decide and only one verdict is made!!!!!!!
Yes, it was a tragic case. My father was very angry about it. As a GP he several times over 30 years in practice had to speak in court for patients of good character who had shoplifted accidentally, whether from the onset of dementia or, in one case, strain and exhaustion. The woman concerned was caring for a dying relative and hardly sleeping.
The second 'guilty' verdict was simply the first 'not guilty' footage with the shot of Lady Arabella shown exactly where the foreman said the word 'not'. Just some clever video editing.
The condition of defence counsel's wig should be a chargeable offence, and his robe hasn't seen the inside of a dry-cleaning establishment for some time. Nice touch.
Queen's Counsel traditionally do not launder or dry-clean their gowns. One of those quaint (but perhaps rather insalubrious) customs of the Bar, like not shaking hands with each other. :) Having an old grey wig, instead of a pristine white one, is usually an indication of many years experience. 'White Wig' was the term given to a young and/or inexperienced counsel fresh out of pupilage; though some, like Rumpole - whose wig, I believe, was previously owned by a Chief Justice of Tonga - will buy a second hand one to save money. It's little touches like this, together with the splendid acting, that made Crown Court so realistic.
In practice, the manager would say "There appears to have been an oversight. Shall I put them on your account, Madam?". She probably spends 100 times their value every month.
We tend to assume that the jury come to the verdict intended by the writer, and forget that they're picked at random from the public, not actors. I often wonder how many times in Crown Court the jury come to an unexpected verdict not forseen by the actors, producer or writer.
Fun Fact; In modern times, some countries base the punishment upon how wealthy the criminal is, in the reverse to this-in Finland, for example, the fine for speeding is based upon the daily earnings of the culprit and in one case with a Nokia executive, the fine was EUR121 000 for driving at 30 KM over the limit. Another Finnish executive was fined USD220 000 for a similar offence. As this money goes to the government, numerous Finns are concerned that these extra funds might be used to weaponize the police, as in the US.
Sir Jez, you naughty boy making up your own judgement at the end, and you are of course wrong, as we all know the nobility are blameless and wouldn't dream of doing such a thing! I had an account at Selfridges, in the good old days, and I used to put things in my handbag all the time, the handbag was stolen, but I paid for the the things in it, so it evened out ;-). Ta very much for this one x.
😃 The black widow from Open All Hours! 😄 I recogniher instantly. I like how speaks and drops her lids every now and then in character. Special, that is. A trademark! 👍🏻 Oh, and isn’t it so nice to see her smile?? 🥰😅 Since we never saw her smile in Open All Hours! 😄 Ooh, this reminded me if Wynona Ryder’s case. I like her very much but that case made truly wonder why she did such a thing. Was she in her sound mind or under the influence of some kind of drug? She’s so sweet as her voice and features plus body language indicate but tries hard not to show the opposite, a matter of building an image and character in a society that does not recognize boring nice girls! 🤷🏻♀️ She broke in tears when she met Johnny Depp after a very long absence. I think she went through lots during the period spent in between the time she left him until they met again, say like 15 years or is it more like 20+? He probably reminded her of those innocent times, her old self and much more. That is how one gets when they meet a long lost soulmate. I just simply like her. She is So not what the majority believes she appears to be. 🤷🏻♀️ And read the following from her ex fiancé, Depp, “There's been nothing in my 27 years that's comparable to the feeling I have with Winona.”. 🥲🥰 He’d seen the real her, see? For you, Nonna 💐🍃
This is unfair representation of all those who were, are, and will be wrongfully accused for shoplifting. When one is wrongfully accused, the machinery that perpetrates the injustice is so powerful, so swift and so self serving that only the most powerful can stand up to it. The system is rigged to favor the stores, and the "security" personnel. Be very careful before you judge people accused of shoplifting. The "experts" who work as "security" are experts in representing any action on the part of their victims in the most damaging light. They don't care if the accused is guilty. All they care is the successful prosecution of their unsuspecting victim. If you are accused of shoplifting and you have not intentionally steel, make sure you don't sign anything, call your lawyer immediately, and make sure you call the police immediately.
The police will not now prosecute - or even attend - for shoplifting of goods with a value of less than £200, so the store has to bring (and pay for) a private prosecution if it wishes to proceed. I agree though that some of these security personnel / store detectives, often employed by agencies, can be on a power trip and are not above lying and manipulation of the facts. However, they have no authority to compel you to give them any information whatever - including your name and address. So refuse to answer any questions and say absolutely nothing.
I am sure that some episodes were based on real events. Lady Isobel Barnett- a doctor and TV celebrity- had been caught stealing goods worth 87p from her village shop. She was also a Justice of the Peace. She was actually convicted and there was a lot of press coverage.
She confessed in an interview 2 days before she took her own life that she was a compulsive shoplifter, she had coat with a poachers pocket when she was arrested for a can of tuna fish and a carton of cream at a cost of 87p. Fined £75. Sentenced herself to death for the embarrassment!
@@lowkeyliesmith3795 there u go then. GUILTY !! I dont feel sorry for her. I feel sorry for shop keepers who have to put up with people who think its ok and not really a crime to deliberately walk into their store with the absolute intention of thieving whether out of need or simply to feel good about something. and ALL shop lifters do this. Sure they make out they simply FORGOT or r suffering from depression .. whatever..!! lol They are guilty and need to be punished so they never do it again !!
I think the Wikipedia entry on "Crown Court" at large alludes to some times that the jury of real people ... was DIRECTED to come in with a particular verdict. Makes me wonder if this was one of those times.
I agree with the extra at the end. I do enjoy the earlier ones more though, I think the quality dipped a little in the last couple of series as it often does.
Kirk St Moritz has gone all posh lol! I will say nothing about the verdict here, but will say that I enjoyed the bonus material very much! Nice one Jez!
Your alternative ending is not very charitable; mental illness afflicts the rich and the poor. In the US, the police would have tased her, strip-searched her, thrown her into a concrete holding cell and charged her with at least two felonies.
Too many leading questions in the part of examination in chief conducted by the defence. I really wonder how would the judge react in the circumstances such as this in reality.
bruce hill, I thought the verdict was wrong too just based on the previous conviction alone. If I had been a juror, I wouldve asked, why would a store give a woman with a previous conviction for shoplifting unlimited credit and way wasn't she banned from said store? That shrink didn't help her case either. I mean, why would a properly trained doctor put her on a medicine with known bad side effects and let her pop them like candy? A conviction could've allowed her to be committed to a hospital and shown that mental illness can strike anyone, rich or poor.
Agreed but I suspect that people doffed the cap much more in those days. 'She's a Lady with lots of money, why would she need to steal?, etc' Cleptomania perhaps or because she felt entitled....
How could the defence counsel ask leading question in the first half of his in chief? And how stupid of him to ask his client to disclose her prevoius conviction ? In case she has a clear record, the prosecution shall dislose to the bench if she chooses to give evidence in the box, otherwise, that should be kept secret until convicted. Prosecution is not allowed to mention any previous conviction unless there is loss of shield situation. In general, the accused is running a fanciful defence.
The judge must have been feeling overlooked when the honours were handed out Sir Charles and Lady Arabella and the defence counsel Sir Harvey Venables and saw an opportunity to get at at least one of them!.
The impression is given that if you have the means you can ostensibly "hire" the crown court for your own ends,I sincerely hope that is not the case!.I would have thought that a minor case such as this would be heard in the magistrates court,or here in Scotland,at the sheriff court. I see that the general consensus amongst the comments is that she is guilty,but by the letter of the law it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she intended to permanently deprive the owners of the alleged stolen goods,which her defence proved quite admirably!,that she did not have that intent.
All criminal cases start life in the Magistrates’ Court, but some will go up to the Crown Court for trial or sentencing. In this case it must be understood that the defendant Has an either way triable case (can be heard in magistrates or crown court) and irrespective of background or wealth the defendant chooses trial by jury in the Crown Court. This was stated by her defence when under question at 27:26
Even setting aside her unlikable arrogance, she was still clearly guilty. Pathetic excuses all around, not to mention the blatantly unlawful intimidation the prosecution witnesses suffered by her defence brief during questioning. The judge was well below par in these instances by not intervening. Shame.
Not the first time the story has concerned a well-to-do woman being accused of theft but certainly no less enjoyable. I think Crown Court should have been shown in the evenings, occupying the slot where you'd usually get soap operas, as good as the soaps were back then. As a series, Crown Court is just as entertaining and the acting often better.
I am mind boggled at how legally accurate this show is. Also, I actually agree with the first verdict, that defense counsel was very good, and to be honest, it doesn't make sense for her to have 300 pounds in her purse and not pay for such small items. So, I believe that the first verdict was correct.
spoiler alert don't read on............................................................. she should've got 6 months! if it had been anyone else, they'd never have gotten away with it!!!!!
As a long time resident of Fulchester, I can confirm that it is a crime hotbed.
This is an absolutely fantastic series, Now i understand why my mother would take time out of her day to watch this. Thank you so much for inviting me down memory lane by sharing these episodes with us all! Life seemed so much simpler and happier in the 70's and 80's!
actor GeoffreyKeen as defence QC, must be one of the most believable courtpersons ever seen. it's as if he has been attending court for years, amazing acting
Yes, he was such a good defence counsel, I have to say. If only all were that good.
I can't thank you again. As an American I love these dramas.
It is nice to have the opportunity to re-visit some wonderfully produced programmes. Many thanks for sharing.
My pleasure :)
There were some legal blunders in there that would have provided for a very nice appeal.
@@therealxunil2 What were they ?
I'm currently rewatching all these Crown Courts. Thanks for the continued enjoyment, Jez.
A pleasure, DDandrums! :)
I have worked retail at the luxury end of the market and I have encountered lots of wealthy and privileged people who we had to keep an eye on. Some of them steal for fun, some out of contempt for staff and some because they deal in such large sums of money that the matter of £50 or £100 doesn't seem enough to them to bother actually paying. They would be confused when asked to pay for something they were walking out with, as if it were a petty formality they thought wasn't important.
People like her do exist. Back in 1987, I held the door open for Sara Keays at a department store similar to the one described in this case. Her claim to "fame" was that, as secretary to Secretary of State for Transport Cecil Parkinson (Con), she became his mistress and had his child - a child he never met in person. This dowdy woman swept into the store without thanking me - so I said it for her (standard MO with rude people). I think my g/f at the time said something robust to Keays' back too. 😂 Goodness knows what this woman's motive for theft was - laziness, arrogance, personality defect - but she was intolerable, and guilty to boot!
The actors playing the defence/prosecution counsels in this are superb.
I always sat and watched this amazing series with my Mother, back in the 1970’s the program was aired on a weekday, early afternoon,close to lunchtime.
The jury clearly influenced by her status and not the clear evidence. A sign of the times this was produced. But, definitely guilty - so your revised ending was highly satisfying!
As soon as she walked over the threshold. Guilty.
Maggie Steed prosecuting..She was in Harvey Moon about the sane time..great in that too..what a contrast.
And good old Stephanie Cole!
I concur with the latter verdict. Lady Dyson was guilty of stealing, her state of mind at the time was merely mitigating circumstances that the judge could deal with as it pleased him.
In his summing up, defence counsel asks why Lady Wotsit would steal goods to the value of £120 when she had £300 in her bag. As a young man, I was a juror on a (real) trial in which a similar question was asked, also by defence counsel. Prosecution counsel had already anticipated this rhetorical question, and had provided the simple answer: "greed".
. . . the accused was Ghewish, then?
@@davidstuckey9289 As a matter of fact, no. The defendants were two Arabs accused of defrauding the NHS of £15K, a sum of money which was clearly a trifling amount to them. They were both found guilty. The details stick in my mind to this day, 40 years on.
@@alecgallagher9196 so basically the same thing.
Am watching all of these - so thanks for putting them on here
Great episode with a great ending. Thanks Jez 👍🏼. Actually, I think I can honestly say that this is my favourite story so far. It's the fact that I love Maggie Steed lol..
Maggie Steed was exceptional in this.
@@vordmanShe always is
what a fantastic cast, well presented and acted.
I had the privilege of knowing 'Tony Parker - the writer of this episode. A fascinating man and a real student of human nature.
love the added bit at the end Jez, brilliant!
My favorite program during my school days
I hated Crown Court when I was a kid (maybe I'm a bit younger than you...or was just too young to appreciate it!) Only ever saw it when I was skiving off school, lol. Not too ill to sneak downstairs to watch TV!) 😄 Love it now though 😊
Interesting to see how the ritch were treated compared to the normal folk in 1981
Almost didn't recognise Peter Blake as a toff - bit different to Kirk from Dear John and his other flashy characters!
Jez....thanks for uploading all of these. Fantastic. Takes me back to popping home from school for lunch. Brilliant series that stands up well. Re this episode, the jury foreperson all but tugged a forelock as he delivered the verdict.
Agreed with the revised verdict. Thank you!!👍
Very young Maggie Steed, Stephanie Cole & Peter Blake. Geoffrey Keen taking time off as 'The Minister' from James Bond to moonlight as a barrister.
Steed wasn't that young, 36, but relatively new to the acting profession: excellent in Fox.
The always brilliant Geoffrey Keen yet another favourite of mine
Guilty, she was oh so guilty, even the judge thought so!!
This is the one episode I do actually remember, because of the connection with Laby Isobel Barnett.
She sure was guilty and thought she could steal what she wanted and clearly get away with it. Enjoying your uploads thankyou 👍
Don't know how some of you here think she was set up. If you leave a store with items in your possession that have not been paid for or charged to your account it is considered as stealing. She should have been found guilty.
To commit theft you need to take something with the intention of depriving its owner of it permanently. The intention is the important thing. Leaving without paying isn't necessarily theft. People sometimes fail to pay because they are ill or absent minded. www.britannica.com/topic/theft
Well go to a store and try doing that, Sophie. When you get arrested try to use that excuse and see how far you get with it.
I work for a well known retail store. Our management would consider any item being taken from the store without first having paid for it as theft
Absolutely - it is black and white. If you do not pay then it is theft.
I think this episode was influenced by the real case of Lady Isobel Barnett whom suffered early dementia and stole from a local crappy shop. The owner told the police. She later committed suicide days her court appearance. She electrocuted herself in the bath. Lady Barnett was a tv personality in the 1960s. Poor woman RIP. What is strange about this episode is what are there are two alternative endings? Surely the Jury selected from the public decide and only one verdict is made!!!!!!!
Yes, it was a tragic case. My father was very angry about it. As a GP he several times over 30 years in practice had to speak in court for patients of good character who had shoplifted accidentally, whether from the onset of dementia or, in one case, strain and exhaustion. The woman concerned was caring for a dying relative and hardly sleeping.
Who suffered.
The second 'guilty' verdict was simply the first 'not guilty' footage with the shot of Lady Arabella shown exactly where the foreman said the word 'not'. Just some clever video editing.
Guilty of shoplifting, no. Guilty of criminal bitchiness, hell yes!
Guilty of both.
The condition of defence counsel's wig should be a chargeable offence, and his robe hasn't seen the inside of a dry-cleaning establishment for some time. Nice touch.
Taken a leaf out of Rumpole's book, perhaps!
Queen's Counsel traditionally do not launder or dry-clean their gowns. One of those quaint (but perhaps rather insalubrious) customs of the Bar, like not shaking hands with each other. :) Having an old grey wig, instead of a pristine white one, is usually an indication of many years experience. 'White Wig' was the term given to a young and/or inexperienced counsel fresh out of pupilage; though some, like Rumpole - whose wig, I believe, was previously owned by a Chief Justice of Tonga - will buy a second hand one to save money.
It's little touches like this, together with the splendid acting, that made Crown Court so realistic.
In practice, the manager would say "There appears to have been an oversight. Shall I put them on your account, Madam?". She probably spends 100 times their value every month.
Great to see Maggie Steed, loved her in Shine on Harvey Moon.
We tend to assume that the jury come to the verdict intended by the writer, and forget that they're picked at random from the public, not actors. I often wonder how many times in Crown Court the jury come to an unexpected verdict not forseen by the actors, producer or writer.
Bearing in mind that real juries are also members of the public, the question is, how often do they get it this wrong in real life.
A barrister friend of mine, now a judge, used to say that juries usually arrive at the right decision, though probably for all the wrong reasons.
Fun Fact; In modern times, some countries base the punishment upon how wealthy the criminal is, in the reverse to this-in Finland, for example, the fine for speeding is based upon the daily earnings of the culprit and in one case with a Nokia executive, the fine was EUR121 000 for driving at 30 KM over the limit. Another Finnish executive was fined USD220 000 for a similar offence.
As this money goes to the government, numerous Finns are concerned that these extra funds might be used to weaponize the police, as in the US.
Sir Jez, you naughty boy making up your own judgement at the end, and you are of course wrong, as we all know the nobility are blameless and wouldn't dream of doing such a thing! I had an account at Selfridges, in the good old days, and I used to put things in my handbag all the time, the handbag was stolen, but I paid for the the things in it, so it evened out ;-). Ta very much for this one x.
😂😂😂 😊👍
Was the police officer a paramedic in casualty. Might check the credits.
😃 The black widow from Open All Hours! 😄
I recogniher instantly. I like how speaks and drops her lids every now and then in character. Special, that is. A trademark! 👍🏻 Oh, and isn’t it so nice to see her smile?? 🥰😅 Since we never saw her smile in Open All Hours! 😄
Ooh, this reminded me if Wynona Ryder’s case. I like her very much but that case made truly wonder why she did such a thing. Was she in her sound mind or under the influence of some kind of drug? She’s so sweet as her voice and features plus body language indicate but tries hard not to show the opposite, a matter of building an image and character in a society that does not recognize boring nice girls! 🤷🏻♀️ She broke in tears when she met Johnny Depp after a very long absence. I think she went through lots during the period spent in between the time she left him until they met again, say like 15 years or is it more like 20+? He probably reminded her of those innocent times, her old self and much more. That is how one gets when they meet a long lost soulmate. I just simply like her. She is So not what the majority believes she appears to be. 🤷🏻♀️ And read the following from her ex fiancé, Depp, “There's been nothing in my 27 years that's comparable to the feeling I have with Winona.”. 🥲🥰 He’d seen the real her, see?
For you, Nonna 💐🍃
This is unfair representation of all those who were, are, and will be wrongfully accused for shoplifting. When one is wrongfully accused, the machinery that perpetrates the injustice is so powerful, so swift and so self serving that only the most powerful can stand up to it. The system is rigged to favor the stores, and the "security" personnel. Be very careful before you judge people accused of shoplifting. The "experts" who work as "security" are experts in representing any action on the part of their victims in the most damaging light. They don't care if the accused is guilty. All they care is the successful prosecution of their unsuspecting victim. If you are accused of shoplifting and you have not intentionally steel, make sure you don't sign anything, call your lawyer immediately, and make sure you call the police immediately.
The police will not now prosecute - or even attend - for shoplifting of goods with a value of less than £200, so the store has to bring (and pay for) a private prosecution if it wishes to proceed.
I agree though that some of these security personnel / store detectives, often employed by agencies, can be on a power trip and are not above lying and manipulation of the facts. However, they have no authority to compel you to give them any information whatever - including your name and address. So refuse to answer any questions and say absolutely nothing.
I am sure that some episodes were based on real events. Lady Isobel Barnett- a doctor and TV celebrity- had been caught stealing goods worth 87p from her village shop. She was also a Justice of the Peace. She was actually convicted and there was a lot of press coverage.
Bet it wasnt the first time she'd done it too.
Isobel Barnett took her own life after the case too.
She confessed in an interview 2 days before she took her own life that she was a compulsive shoplifter, she had coat with a poachers pocket when she was arrested for a can of tuna fish and a carton of cream at a cost of 87p. Fined £75. Sentenced herself to death for the embarrassment!
@@lowkeyliesmith3795 there u go then. GUILTY !! I dont feel sorry for her. I feel sorry for shop keepers who have to put up with people who think its ok and not really a crime to deliberately walk into their store with the absolute intention of thieving whether out of need or simply to feel good about something. and ALL shop lifters do this. Sure they make out they simply FORGOT or r suffering from depression .. whatever..!! lol They are guilty and need to be punished so they never do it again !!
i love the music in crown crown a nice benevalant stuff great
I like watching these to remind me of a time when we had law and order 🤣
I think the Wikipedia entry on "Crown Court" at large alludes to some times that the jury of real people ... was DIRECTED to come in with a particular verdict. Makes me wonder if this was one of those times.
I recognized Stephanie Cole as the security guard witness only by her voice.
.if you google most of these actors now.its amazing to see how many are no longer with us.
Really? Both Steed & Cole are... elderly but still w us... that I know.
The policeman was played by Ian Bleasdale who was a paramedic in “Casualty”.
I remember Terry McCann taking the rap for one of these toff shoplifters in Minder. Chisolm did him up like a kipper, the git.
This is obviously based on the real life case of Lady Isobel Barnett en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isobel_Barnett
Also covered this in an episode of Minder 'caught in the act, fact'
Never thought i'd see the wife of Socrates on a shoplifting charge.
I agree with the extra at the end. I do enjoy the earlier ones more though, I think the quality dipped a little in the last couple of series as it often does.
Store manager clearly conspired with his mum to fit her up!
Maggie Steed as the Prosecution!!! Stephanie Cole as 1st witness for the Prosecution!!
I concur, wholeheartedly with YOUR verdict, JEZ T! 🤩✨✨✨
Thanks for sharing
Stephanie Cole and Maggie steed are great actresses!👍
See Thorley Walters as the defence barrister in TV drama 'Malice aforethought'.
Kirk St Moritz has gone all posh lol! I will say nothing about the verdict here, but will say that I enjoyed the bonus material very much! Nice one Jez!
Dreadful woman--but the jury got it right. Thanks for all these great episodes.
Rumple of the Bailey
Rumpole. Unless you are kidding 😊
Your alternative ending is not very charitable; mental illness afflicts the rich and the poor. In the US, the police would have tased her, strip-searched her, thrown her into a concrete holding cell and charged her with at least two felonies.
Autodidact2 gx
Sorry, nothing of the sort would have happened to her in America. Honestly, stop demonizing people you dislike.
Your point?
Oh goodness! It's the Waiting For God lady! She's a hoot in that show! 😝😝😝😝😝
Omg Diana!!!
Yes! The Waiting For God lady! 😁😁😁😁😁
Clearly guilty. You take something from a shop without paying, YOU ARE GUILTY end of !!!
That's not correct. You have to intend to steal. Check out this short legal explanation: www.britannica.com/topic/theft
You couldn't be further from the truth. All down to intent
@@monetfaversham6703 Im so glad I did jury service and we found the person GUILTY and they went straight to prison where they belong
So WHAT did the jury see and hear we didn't? Surely to goodness not the 'title' .
Too many leading questions in the part of examination in chief conducted by the defence. I really wonder how would the judge react in the circumstances such as this in reality.
.top shelf jez
Thanks jezz i thought she was guilty just on the facts.Shows you how so called respectable people get away with a lot more than your average joe.
bruce hill, I thought the verdict was wrong too just based on the previous conviction alone.
If I had been a juror, I wouldve asked, why would a store give a woman with a previous conviction for shoplifting unlimited credit and way wasn't she banned from said store?
That shrink didn't help her case either. I mean, why would a properly trained doctor put her on a medicine with known bad side effects and let her pop them like candy?
A conviction could've allowed her to be committed to a hospital and shown that mental illness can strike anyone, rich or poor.
Agreed but I suspect that people doffed the cap much more in those days. 'She's a Lady with lots of money, why would she need to steal?, etc' Cleptomania perhaps or because she felt entitled....
bouus material was great, wonder what would happen today?
How could the defence counsel ask leading question in the first half of his in chief?
And how stupid of him to ask his client to disclose her prevoius conviction ? In case she has a clear record, the prosecution shall dislose to the bench if she chooses to give evidence in the box, otherwise, that should be kept secret until convicted. Prosecution is not allowed to mention any previous conviction unless there is loss of shield situation.
In general, the accused is running a fanciful defence.
I'd have gone with that great line from The Producers: "Incredibly guilty"!
Yeah guilty.....you don't have to be legally minded to see that the script was one sided.
LOVE the addendum to the verdict!!! xx SF
Haha, glad you enjoyed that, Steve! :)
Clearly biased judge. The jury were fortunately not influenced by him.
The judge must have been feeling overlooked when the honours were handed out Sir Charles and Lady Arabella and the defence counsel Sir Harvey Venables and saw an opportunity to get at at least one of them!.
The impression is given that if you have the means you can ostensibly "hire" the crown court for your own ends,I sincerely hope that is not the case!.I would have thought that a minor case such as this would be heard in the magistrates court,or here in Scotland,at the sheriff court.
I see that the general consensus amongst the comments is that she is guilty,but by the letter of the law it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she intended to permanently deprive the owners of the alleged stolen goods,which her defence proved quite admirably!,that she did not have that intent.
All criminal cases start life in the Magistrates’ Court, but some will go up to the Crown Court for trial or sentencing. In this case it must be understood that the defendant Has an either way triable case (can be heard in magistrates or crown court) and irrespective of background or wealth the defendant chooses trial by jury in the Crown Court. This was stated by her defence when under question at 27:26
Even setting aside her unlikable arrogance, she was still clearly guilty. Pathetic excuses all around, not to mention the blatantly unlawful intimidation the prosecution witnesses suffered by her defence brief during questioning. The judge was well below par in these instances by not intervening. Shame.
they should bring back crown as a actor i love to work i be the frist to audition freemantle could od it
Really good 👍
old snob but she was innocent
Camilla Parker Bowles in the jury (striped outfit at the end of the rh row back lol)
Dunno. Maybe.
My Dad was on the jury and was fantasising about her Ladyship for most of the trial … 👨
Good One.
Sublime Peter Bayliss
Not the first time the story has concerned a well-to-do woman being accused of theft but certainly no less enjoyable. I think Crown Court should have been shown in the evenings, occupying the slot where you'd usually get soap operas, as good as the soaps were back then. As a series, Crown Court is just as entertaining and the acting often better.
Thorley Walters! Stephanie Cole!
GUILTY!! The bitch did it for the thrill! 😄 Great episode, terrible verdict!
I thought Lady Arabella's apology was so insincere!
She can do no wrong … she treated my like the Princely stud that I am 🧔
I really don't understand many of these judgements, I seriously don't.
Lady Di should have been locked up the arrogant bee hatch
I am mind boggled at how legally accurate this show is. Also, I actually agree with the first verdict, that defense counsel was very good, and to be honest, it doesn't make sense for her to have 300 pounds in her purse and not pay for such small items. So, I believe that the first verdict was correct.
Prefer the second outcome, for sure.
What a greasy, sneaky tea leaf!!!!🤯,,,,,😀
ugh. she was guilty and needs better therapy
Guilty!!!!
Not guilty! WHAT?????
Oh my gosh, really:)
wow..im going stealing tomorrow
😂 Good one!
spoiler alert don't read on............................................................. she should've got 6 months! if it had been anyone else, they'd never have gotten away with it!!!!!
She's guilty!
bet she gets away with it, shoplifting for a buzz.
what a horrific old boot
She got all the ‘buzz’ she wanted from me … ❤️