|
Banker, 33, is cleared of assaulting BA cabin crew
I wonder if BA will ban him from all their flights?
A west London banker has today been cleared of assaulting five BA cabin crew after taking a cocktail of alcohol and sleeping pills. William Clegg, 33, claimed he had 'no conscious control' during the mid-air ruckus on a transatlantic flight between San Jose in the US and Heathrow. He told jury members he had taken two Ambien sleeping pills, along with three glasses of wine and two travel-sized bottles of Baileys, prior to the incident in August 2019. While under the influence of the drugs and alcohol, Clegg allegedly assaulted five BA cabin crew. This included attempting to headbutt a female flight attendant, and pulling a male flight attendant onto the ground, a court previously heard. The banker, who lives in London's pricey Notting Hill district, denied the allegations and has been on trial at Isleworth Crown Court. Today he was found not guilty on all counts after the jury deliberated for just under an hour, following the four day trial. |
Like the other recent case discussed in this thread it is hard to understand how they are found not guilty.
https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/brit...nger-ever.html However, also like the other case the jury took less than an hour so clearly they didn't struggle to reach their verdict. The verdict is surprising based on what was reported, but I wasn't there in the trial or in that jury. |
The fact it was two Ambien (which is never a prescribed dose and is also quite dangerous) seems to make the verdict baffling.
|
So the Ambien was his defence?
How is this different to a pissed up driver running in to someone or a coked up freak picking a fight? Spike |
Same apparent combination which apparently made the seemingly normal guy sitting next to me on the UD of a flight from HKG get up, start to assault the crew and then collapse in the space between rows 61 & 62. I had to sit on him whilst the crew got the restraints. He turned into a zombie from having been completely normal 10 mins earlier.
|
Originally Posted by Funky Spike
(Post 33898911)
So the Ambien was his defence?
How is this different to a pissed up driver running in to someone or a coked up freak picking a fight? Spike It certainly is the case the jury was in not at all persuaded he was guilty to the standard required - although the article doesn't state this it would have been a unanimous verdict since it was so quick being under an hour. |
Banker taking Ambien on BA vs builder drinking vodka on EasyJet
|
Originally Posted by Funky Spike
(Post 33898911)
So the Ambien was his defence?
How is this different to a pissed up driver running in to someone or a coked up freak picking a fight? Spike I was always under the impression being under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs could not be used as a defence or mitigating circumstances for criminal behaviour in the UK. But then I guess being able to afford the best lawyers is always going to make a difference. |
Yes, I, too, don't understand it. Perhaps we are not getting the whole story. But I have always held the belief that one is responsible for one's actions no matter what substances (legal or otherwise) one has consumed.
rb211. |
Given that Ambien is a prescription drug over on this side of the Pond there's a page or so of paperwork including warnings of side effects both the drug by itself and when it's being used with other things (not just other drugs), that's also on the bottle (much more compact from and type). For example, I've got one of my prescriptions that I need to avoid grapefruit juice because it causes it to be too effective. He was lucky to have enough money to get a very good lawyer., a lot of places over here he would have been in trouble for using his GF's prescription.
Hopefully he gets banned by BA for a fairly long period of time. |
Hard to fathom why he was found not guilty, but all I can see is the press report. I did jury service last year, which also resulted in acquittal - simply put the evidence was not strong enough for conviction, and this was after two days of deliberation. I am sure that if the press had reported on the trial that the acquital would've been met with anger as the nuances were left out.
I also sat on a second trial, which resulted in an hour's deliberation prior to acquital. The evidence was far too weak to persuade anyone of guilt, which I can only imagine is what's happened here. I think if I were BA I'd be banning the passenger regardless here, though. |
Originally Posted by KSVVZ2015
(Post 33898798)
The fact it was two Ambien (which is never a prescribed dose and is also quite dangerous) seems to make the verdict baffling.
|
Now imagine it was a young working class man in a tracksuit...
|
So, if the banker has been cleared of assault, who headbutted the crew and who threw the other crew to the floor?
or was this case handled by this guy? https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...749e2e9c0.jpeg |
Originally Posted by 13901
(Post 33899393)
So, if the banker has been cleared of assault, who headbutted the crew and who threw the other crew to the floor?
or was this case handled by this guy? https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...749e2e9c0.jpeg more like... https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...eec024791.jpeg |
Uh-oh! I thought he still on no-fly list permanently.
Well! As long if he behave well. Keep out of trouble! |
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. |
Originally Posted by krispy84
(Post 33899635)
I’d hope FTers were a bit more sensible.
|
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. |
Originally Posted by krispy84
(Post 33899635)
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. |
Originally Posted by KSVVZ2015
(Post 33898798)
The fact it was two Ambien (which is never a prescribed dose and is also quite dangerous) seems to make the verdict baffling.
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. |
Originally Posted by krispy84
(Post 33899635)
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. |
Definitely sounds like an injustice on the surface but without sitting through trial our judgements are just guesses.
|
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.” |
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. |
Several jury members were trying to call BA the week before and couldn't get through.
|
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. |
Originally Posted by RB211
(Post 33899150)
Yes, I, too, don't understand it. Perhaps we are not getting the whole story. But I have always held the belief that one is responsible for one's actions no matter what substances (legal or otherwise) one has consumed.
rb211. |
Originally Posted by erik123
(Post 33900730)
Several jury members were trying to call BA the week before and couldn't get through.
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! |
Originally Posted by ratechaser
(Post 33899761)
I stopped being a banker after 2008, I've been an operations director ever since ;)
|
Originally Posted by Can I help you
(Post 33900884)
Once a banker always a banker. 😂
|
Originally Posted by ratechaser
(Post 33900894)
Sadly, only in private these days...
|
Clearly we are only party to the elements of the case mentioned in the report and there is a whole "something" missing.
However, as Boris Johnson is being reminded of regularly, ignorance of law breaking is not a defence in the UK. That would lead to a free for all. Clearly something happened and clearly the CPS felt they had a case. Did Richard Gere just waltz in and give the jury the old Razzle Dazzle? |
Originally Posted by ratechaser
(Post 33899761)
I stopped being a banker after 2008, I've been an operations director ever since ;)
|
Originally Posted by krispy84
(Post 33900950)
A front office ops director? 😉😂
|
Originally Posted by Can I help you
(Post 33900959)
As apposed to a back office?
Sorry if this is getting too niche! |
Originally Posted by krispy84
(Post 33900992)
A back / middle office ops director isn’t a banker in my book. You don’t tend to get many ops directors in front office anyway 😁😁
Sorry if this is getting too niche! |
Originally Posted by RetiredATLATC
(Post 33899256)
I take one Ambien at home to help with wearing a CPAP mask, and the baffling things my wife has said I've sometimes done....is well, baffling.
|
Ambien is a scary drug. Some people handle it just fine. Others do crazy *** and don't remember any of it the next morning.
|
Originally Posted by krispy84
(Post 33899635)
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. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 3:19 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.