N830MH

Uh-oh! I thought he still on no-fly list permanently.

Well! As long if he behave well. Keep out of trouble!

krispy84

The man’s occupation is irrelevant to the situation.

It is being used by the Daily Mail to stir up readers’ emotions. I’d hope FTers were a bit more sensible.

Globaliser

I'd also hope that FTers were generally aware that the law "is a bit more complicated than that".

CKBA

i) I am curious about the 'travel-size Baileys' - were they "miniatures"? We get the econony-size bottles of gin (which are 1.75l).
ii) Many US carriers (at least internal) have video cameras as standard now - clearly to provide (some) evidence in such situations.

ratechaser

I stopped being a banker after 2008, I've been an operations director ever since

jerseytom

Question of the specific charges presented and the boxes you have to check as a juror to establish guilt for that charge. It's not "did the defendant commit a crime" it's "did they commit this specific crime that someone has chosen to prosecute." And if you have to check boxes A, B, and C to be guilty, all you need is certainty that one box is unchecked and the defendant is innocent.

When I was on jury it took us ~5 hours to reach a verdict on what was a relatively obvious case, the first hour coming to consensus on how to deliberate. So if this was done in an hour all together, there must have been some gaping hole in the charge(s) brought vs. the evidence or testimony presented.

Obligatory "I am not a lawyer" but that was my experience anyway.

Midships

And imagine if he had been a mother, wife or grandmother? Or had had once met Prince Andrew and there was a photo?

mtofell

Definitely sounds like an injustice on the surface but without sitting through trial our judgements are just guesses.

binman

The standard that must be reached is “beyond reasonable doubt” it is, rightly, an extraordinarily high bar and the verdict suggest nothing more than that the prosecution failed to make their case adequately to reach that bar.

Second guessing juries or questioning verdicts, when you have not heard all the evidence and been present throughout the trial is not helpful to delivery if justice.

“It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”

HarryHolden68

If I commit murder, I will pray for trial by jury.

A friend of mine sat on a jury for what appeared to be an "open and shut" drug dealing case. After 30 minutes deliberation, the jury sat at 11-1 guilty. My friend was the 1. His position was that the defendant was not guilty as they had said, under oath, that they were set up and the police planted the drugs in their car. Being under oath, they are not allowed to lie. Stubborn as he is, my friend refused to see reason, consider that the defendant may not be being totally truthful and that the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and the defence had offered little. 3 days later, the judge accepted 11-1.

I can imagine being the prosecution in a jury trial must be terrifying waiting to see the jury that appears. A close contact sat on a child abuse case and two others in the jury decided the accused was guilty before they had heard a word.

erik123

Several jury members were trying to call BA the week before and couldn't get through.

mmxbreaks

Wonder who was pulling which strings here.
If I took a substance, knowing the risks, then did something stupid, I would be liable for those actions.
I couldn't board a flight, neck a bunch of drinks, then wrestle the crew and then later blame the booze in court.
Only acceptable deviation to that, IMO, would be if unknowingly dosed with substances - which seems highly implausible and not relevant in this case.

South London Bon Viveur

Correct, and rightly so, but in the complex world of criminal law, if someone is impaired to the point of lacking the necessary capacity to know what they are doing then that might afford a defence to certain offences. It may be that he was charged with the "wrong" offence, and that other charges might have stuck. And yes I am sure that being able to afford top notch lawyers will not have hurt his defence.

Ladyfliestheredwhiteandblues

One of the only sensible, whilst obviously tongue in cheek, posts on this thread. None of us know the full facts so many of the others are speculation.
On the face of it the defendant got away with being disorderly and with assault but we weren’t there and don’t know what happened. At the very least I hope the defendant now knows not to take an excessive dose of somebody else’s medication in future but I hope for a lot of things that don’t transpire!

Can I help you

Once a banker always a banker. 😂