if a case is thrown out of court are you innocent? UK Only?

Question

if a case is thrown out of court by the judge, are you innocent, can you be retriled, are you cleared of the offence?#
****UK answers only please*****

I am innocent but am i innocent through the eyes of the law? it will be thrown out because so many lies have been told and we have shown evidence of these lies. I want to be found not guilty but, is going to be thrown out because of all the lies

Answer 1

yes babe xx

Answer 2

You can be tried for the same thing twice now, the double jeopardy law has been scrapped within the past few months. As for being thrown out of court I think you could end up back there if the charge was changed perhaps, that would depend on CPS but the judge will also take into account how much tax payers money has been wasted so far. You say you are innocent so don't worry, it's gone...

Answer 3

Even if you were to be found "not guilty" that does not make you "innocent" in the eyes of the law. If it did the jury would be asked to find you "innocent", which is not the system in the UK. The term "not guilty" is used because it means that a jury or court finds that there is not enough evidence upon which they can convict you. Not guilty is therefore a totally different concept to "innocent". Sorry.

Answer 4

Just because a case is thrown out of court does not mean youre innocent, just that there was a lack of evidence to convict, but the prosecution can demand a retrial through appeal, and it is occasionally granted (ie: the case of the car boot killing in Scotland, where the original case was dropped, the prosecution demanded a retrial which was granted and the woman in question was found Guilty of Murder) Hope this helps.

Answer 5

There are in fact two answers to this question. The first is the strictly legal answer: that is that a trial is the determining factor in a person's LEGAL innocence or guilt. It is quite simple: you are either convicted, in which case you are guilty, or you are found not guilty, in which case you are innocent. That, I stress, is only in law, and indeed, only in CRIMINAL law.

In the UK the criminal courts can only convict where the evidence iscompelling "beyond reasonable doubt". Thus, where the evidence is compelling but does not reach this high standard, the courts are obliged to acquit. Quite clearly, this means that many many people who have indeed done what they are accused of are acquitted because the level of proof is absent.

It is easy to see that, in these cases, although the person is innocent IN LAW, they are in fact GUILTY in FACT.

There are quite a few high profile cases where people have been found guilty of the most serious offences, including bombing and murder, where they have spent long periods in prison but eventually succeeding on appeal because they are able to introduce elements of doubt into the evidence at the original trials. In many of these cases the appeal court judges have been at pains to explain that the appeals are not succeeding because of the person's innocence, but because the original convictions were "unsafe". Thus, the judges have intimated that the people were guilty in fact but innocent in law.

In Scotland they have an alternative finding in criminal trials of "not proven". This covers the sorts of case where there is good but insufficient evidence. It lets it be known that the court feels that the person is guilty but is unable to convict.

Finally, civil courts have a different level of proof; the matter at dispute must be found to have sufficient evidence to prove the case "beyond reasonable doubt". Therefore, as an example, a person can be aquitted at a criminal court of theft because there was insufficient evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, but the victim could succeed at a civil court in an action to recover the "stolen" goods if they were able to prove that the goods were taken unlawfully "on the balance of probabilities".

A very well-publicised example of this is the O J Simpson trial for murder, where he was found to be not guilty, and the subsequent civil trial where he was found to be liable for his wife's death.

Answer 6

Cases are discontinued for so many reasons...it may be a lack of evidence, the complainant declining to attend court and withdrawing statements or refusing to give a statement in the first place.
Therefore, discontinuation does not denote innocence!

If further evidence came to light you can be charged again and go through the legal system.

Answer 7

You're innocent until proven guilty so for the time being you are still
legally innocent.

In the UK the double jeapordy law no longer applies which means
if more compelling evidence is found you can be retried for the same offence.

Answer 8

I think that the only way that you can actually be proved innocent, is if your case goes to trial and you are found to be innocent, if your case gets thrown out of court then you haven't actually been judged.

Answer 9

OH YES YOU CAN ,
New laws passed in september of this year (2006) ( uk )
State that a person can be re-tried ( even if found not guilty ) if new evidence is found ( d.n.a etc ) ( case of dunlop / hogg ) ( he owned up to a crime after he was found not guilty TWICE ) He has now been jailed for life for that crime ! Even cases 30 years old &more are now being looked at ( new d.n.a techniques ) and old crimes are now being solved . So the answer to your question is a definate Yes you can be retried if new evidence is found in later year`s !

Answer 10

Yes, you are.

In the eyes of the law, there is no difference between being found innocent, and the case being thrown out.

You could sue for defamation or slander if you can demonstrate that you've been lied about, and this brought your reputation into disrepute.

Answer 11

Yes you are innocent. One can only be tried once for same offence, unless found guilty where one can have an appeal in certian circumstances. The only exceptions are in very serious crimes such as murder where, only in the last year, there has been a ruling that one can be tried again if originally not guilty, but only if there is compelling new evidence.