I think the writer meant the viewer to think the nuts were thrown to make the woman drop all her items to catch them. Then added a nice twist with the guilty verdict. Smashing stuff.
I would have ruled, not guilty, but then again one has to simply respect the verdict of the jury. Thanks for adding this to RUclips. I spent a few Sunday afternoons as a child watching this. At that time it was a bit over my head.
I just wish they would bring it back the original series or a brand new series.So many unknown actors who have become well known stars on tv and films.They got their break on this show.
It was "Crown Court" which created my interest in Law, although I work in civil law, not criminal. I first started to watch it was I was about the age of 10 when a repeat was shown on Sunday Afternoons. I had no real understanding what the legal terms meant and often ridiculed by my (much older) sister as a result. But in later life I have seen remarkably absurd cases go through Courts such as this, particularly in Matrimonial Law. This is a bit of a weird one, since I cannot see why you would throw a bag of peanuts at someone, unless they had asked you to. Secondly it is not quite clear about the velocity with which the bag was thrown. The real issue was that the bag of nuts was thrown with "malice aforethought"? Perhaps the answer may be "yes". In which case the Jury's return would be fair. We do not know what the exchange was between the two, prior to the bag been thrown, if there was an exchange which appeared to be agressive, then clearly a guilty verdict would be reasonable. Also it is mentioned that one of them had had a lot to drink, so it could be construed as drunk and disorderly, so that may be part of the Jury's decision. As an aside, I wonder whether the shop keeper could have been sued by the woman who fell over the basket holder, on the grounds that the shop was unsafe, i.e. negligence. Also contravention of the Occupiers Liability Act, Health and Safety at Work Act, and also the Defective Premises, Officers and Factories Ledgislation, and duty of care on the part of the owner of the shop. I know the latter issues are to do with Civil Law, but even so some of the facts of the case did seem to be irrelevant to the actual intentions of the woman who had thrown the bag. It would be interesting to see how the negligence case would have run if it was just the woman falling over the basket holder. The case of Ward-v-Tesco Stores 1977 would indicate that there was negligence on the part of the shop keeper. I wonder whether the Defendant could have brought a seperate claim against the shop keeper in civil law?
Oddly enough, it was watching Crown Court as a child that spurred my interest in breaking the Law. I can't tell you how many times I've hummed the theme tune while making my getaway from an armed robbery in a stolen car. I've whistled it while kneecapping criminal rivals, and even while cleaning the shit houses in chokey. Television, eh? It's got a lot to answer for.
If the victim was injured by tripping then it would be in her own interest to sue the shop by way of insurance rather than concocted a malice claim to sue an individual that is already struggling financially, this was proven to be the correct outcome, as the victim was not distracted or in danger until the accused intervened
My verdict wld be not-guilty. l don't think that the second wife intended malice, resulting in the horrific accident. Why warn the person if you a throwing a target at them.
![Kodak Black - Catch Fire [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A4ch-olIuZo/mqdefault.jpg)
I think the writer meant the viewer to think the nuts were thrown to make the woman drop all her items to catch them. Then added a nice twist with the guilty verdict. Smashing stuff.
I would have ruled, not guilty, but then again one has to simply respect the verdict of the jury. Thanks for adding this to RUclips. I spent a few Sunday afternoons as a child watching this. At that time it was a bit over my head.
The shop-keeper had every reason to lie, and be in collusion with the complainant.
I loved it! Very enjoyable to watch, and nice to see Rodney Bewes in something other than the obvious.
He was a most underrated actor.
@@juliejoannebevan6617 he was always a Rodney Bewes, he did nt have a great range. I liked him, but he was pretty average.
Thanks for the upload. I watched it 'as a juror' and also would have found her guilty as charged.
I'm quite surprised by the verdict, which seems to contrast with the usual attitude of the Crown Court juries.
Rodney Bewes RIP.
Geoff Poole and so sad James Bolam never made it up with him
The original Judge Judy - the actress playing the judge is called Judy!
I just wish they would bring it back the original series or a brand new series.So many unknown actors who have become well known stars on tv and films.They got their break on this show.
I expected a different verdict
It was "Crown Court" which created my interest in Law, although I work in civil law, not criminal. I first started to watch it was I was about the age of 10 when a repeat was shown on Sunday Afternoons. I had no real understanding what the legal terms meant and often ridiculed by my (much older) sister as a result. But in later life I have seen remarkably absurd cases go through Courts such as this, particularly in Matrimonial Law.
This is a bit of a weird one, since I cannot see why you would throw a bag of peanuts at someone, unless they had asked you to. Secondly it is not quite clear about the velocity with which the bag was thrown. The real issue was that the bag of nuts was thrown with "malice aforethought"?
Perhaps the answer may be "yes". In which case the Jury's return would be fair.
We do not know what the exchange was between the two, prior to the bag been thrown, if there was an exchange which appeared to be agressive, then clearly a guilty verdict would be reasonable. Also it is mentioned that one of them had had a lot to drink, so it could be construed as drunk and disorderly, so that may be part of the Jury's decision.
As an aside, I wonder whether the shop keeper could have been sued by the woman who fell over the basket holder, on the grounds that the shop was unsafe, i.e. negligence.
Also contravention of the Occupiers Liability Act, Health and Safety at Work Act, and also the Defective Premises, Officers and Factories Ledgislation, and duty of care on the part of the owner of the shop.
I know the latter issues are to do with Civil Law, but even so some of the facts of the case did seem to be irrelevant to the actual intentions of the woman who had thrown the bag.
It would be interesting to see how the negligence case would have run if it was just the woman falling over the basket holder. The case of Ward-v-Tesco Stores 1977 would indicate that there was negligence on the part of the shop keeper.
I wonder whether the Defendant could have brought a seperate claim against the shop keeper in civil law?
Oddly enough, it was watching Crown Court as a child that spurred my interest in breaking the Law. I can't tell you how many times I've hummed the theme tune while making my getaway from an armed robbery in a stolen car. I've whistled it while kneecapping criminal rivals, and even while cleaning the shit houses in chokey. Television, eh? It's got a lot to answer for.
numberstation 4 years on I nearly spat out my tea reading your comment 😂😂😂😂😂🤪🤪 good luck where ever u are ok
But she's not guilty
An entertaining series.
No, Paula's guilt was NOT PROVEN...terrible verdict.
Not guilty surely
SPOILER:
Satisfying decision by the jury.
If the victim was injured by tripping then it would be in her own interest to sue the shop by way of insurance rather than concocted a malice claim to sue an individual that is already struggling financially, this was proven to be the correct outcome, as the victim was not distracted or in danger until the accused intervened
what a rubbish verdict.
She was innocent!!!!
My verdict wld be not-guilty.
l don't think that the second wife intended malice, resulting in the horrific accident.
Why warn the person if you a throwing a target at them.
Where is the bloke in all this?
What did you watch for ?
DREADFULL acting by that Gary Snail.....what happened to that guy? Nothing that I know of??
He became a 'bit part' actor with guest appearances in such long-running series as 'The Bill' and 'Casualty'.
Why didn't she see to the children? If she liked them, you'd have expected her to help them. TWO silly women, and everyone else pays!
Mary Hopkins ,the children were not in the store nor did they need to be in the middle of this mess.
...and mr woodman was on a professionals episode takeaway...sorry, am a professionals fan as you can see.