Latest news with #DavidDavis
The Independent
3 hours ago
- Business
- The Independent
Judicial system needs ‘shake-up' after trader convictions, says Sir David Davis
Conservative MP Sir David Davis has said the judicial system 'needs a shake-up' after describing the convictions of two former financial market traders as a 'major scandal'. Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo were found guilty over benchmark interest rate rigging in 2015 and 2019 respectively, but had their convictions quashed at the Supreme Court on Wednesday. The former UBS trader and the ex-vice president of euro rates at Barclays bank were said to have manipulated the London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (Libor) and the Euro Interbank Offered Rate (Euribor). Speaking at a press conference following the Supreme Court judgment, Sir David described the two men as 'scapegoats for the sins that led to the financial crisis'. He said: 'The implications are far-reaching and of course have been devastating for those caught up in it. 'There were several other people convicted of rate rigging, dozens of others who were either prosecuted, acquitted or not prosecuted. Their lives were upended too. 'This scapegoating exercise happened as a result of collusion between the banks and government agencies, including the SFO (Serious Fraud Office) and FCA (Financial Conduct Authority) and we're not done with that. 'This scandal also highlights the need for urgent reform within our justice system on a range of issues – the handling of expert witnesses right through to the rigidity of the appeals system.' In an 82-page judgment, with which Supreme Court president Lord Reed, Lords Hodge and Lloyd-Jones and Lady Simler agreed, Lord Leggatt said judges' misdirection to the juries had led to the men's wrongful convictions. He said: 'The history of these two cases raises concerns about the effectiveness of the criminal appeal system in England and Wales in confronting legal error.' Sir David said the Supreme Court justices 'did not unpack' why the appeal system fell into error in these cases. He said: 'I think the judicial system needs a shake-up, and this is the latest demonstrator of it, and we will be returning to it in the future.' Mr Hayes said he believes the trials of the two men became caught up in the politics of the financial crisis, adding that there was a 'big desire from institutions and politicians, acting in their own interest largely', for traders to go to prison. Asked about his thoughts on what role juries play in cases like his and Mr Palombo's, he said it was a 'dangerous idea' for complicated fraud and financial cases to be heard only by a judge. The former trader added: 'The jury is the last defensive barrier that every citizen in this country has between them and a wrongful conviction. 'And are juries perfect? No, they're not. Do they make mistakes? Yes, they do. And you know, it's the best of a whole load of options, none of which is perfect.' Ben Rose, part of Mr Palombo's legal team, said Wednesday's Supreme Court judgment is 'likely to offer a route' by which others who have been convicted in similar circumstances 'can right the wrong that has been done to them'. He also said there was a 'fundamental error' in the way the case was prosecuted and that the role of the jury was 'overridden and usurped' by the judges. The lawyer added: 'That should not happen in a country that abides by the rule of law.'
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Judicial system needs ‘shake-up' after trader convictions, says Sir David Davis
Conservative MP Sir David Davis has said the judicial system 'needs a shake-up' after describing the convictions of two former financial market traders as a 'major scandal'. Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo were found guilty over benchmark interest rate rigging in 2015 and 2019 respectively, but had their convictions quashed at the Supreme Court on Wednesday. The former UBS trader and the ex-vice president of euro rates at Barclays bank were said to have manipulated the London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (Libor) and the Euro Interbank Offered Rate (Euribor). Speaking at a press conference following the Supreme Court judgment, Sir David described the two men as 'scapegoats for the sins that led to the financial crisis'. He said: 'The implications are far-reaching and of course have been devastating for those caught up in it. 'There were several other people convicted of rate rigging, dozens of others who were either prosecuted, acquitted or not prosecuted. Their lives were upended too. 'This scapegoating exercise happened as a result of collusion between the banks and government agencies, including the SFO (Serious Fraud Office) and FCA (Financial Conduct Authority) and we're not done with that. 'This scandal also highlights the need for urgent reform within our justice system on a range of issues – the handling of expert witnesses right through to the rigidity of the appeals system.' In an 82-page judgment, with which Supreme Court president Lord Reed, Lords Hodge and Lloyd-Jones and Lady Simler agreed, Lord Leggatt said judges' misdirection to the juries had led to the men's wrongful convictions. He said: 'The history of these two cases raises concerns about the effectiveness of the criminal appeal system in England and Wales in confronting legal error.' Sir David said the Supreme Court justices 'did not unpack' why the appeal system fell into error in these cases. He said: 'I think the judicial system needs a shake-up, and this is the latest demonstrator of it, and we will be returning to it in the future.' Mr Hayes said he believes the trials of the two men became caught up in the politics of the financial crisis, adding that there was a 'big desire from institutions and politicians, acting in their own interest largely', for traders to go to prison. Asked about his thoughts on what role juries play in cases like his and Mr Palombo's, he said it was a 'dangerous idea' for complicated fraud and financial cases to be heard only by a judge. The former trader added: 'The jury is the last defensive barrier that every citizen in this country has between them and a wrongful conviction. 'And are juries perfect? No, they're not. Do they make mistakes? Yes, they do. And you know, it's the best of a whole load of options, none of which is perfect.' Ben Rose, part of Mr Palombo's legal team, said Wednesday's Supreme Court judgment is 'likely to offer a route' by which others who have been convicted in similar circumstances 'can right the wrong that has been done to them'. He also said there was a 'fundamental error' in the way the case was prosecuted and that the role of the jury was 'overridden and usurped' by the judges. The lawyer added: 'That should not happen in a country that abides by the rule of law.'
Telegraph
14-07-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Starmer accused of ‘downplaying' Troubles veterans' plight
Sir Keir Starmer has been accused of 'downplaying' the plight of Troubles' veterans who face prosecution under Labour's proposals to change the law. The Government plans to axe legislation that stopped fresh historical inquests into deaths that occurred in Northern Ireland during The Troubles, as well as civil actions. Labour has said that the 2023 Legacy Act is unpopular with Irish political parties and victims' groups, and judged incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Tim Collins, an ex-British Army colonel who gave a famously stirring eve-of-battle speech on the eve of the Iraq War, said that Sir Keir was 'on the wrong side of the argument'. Col Collins, who is from Northern Ireland, attended Parliament on Wednesday to hear the Prime Minister respond to concerns raised in the Commons about the plans. Sir David Davis said that if the plans are not reversed, the Government will 'sacrifice' veterans to 'politically-motivated lawyers trying to rewrite history with a pack of lies'. Sir Keir in turn accused Sir David of 'cheapening the debate' and 'political point-scoring' with his remarks. Writing for The Telegraph, Col Collins said that the Prime Minister had been 'frivolous and even disdainful' when responding to Sir David's concerns. He said: 'The Prime Minister resorted to downplaying an issue that will confront every Labour MP during the upcoming recess. 'As they return to their constituencies, they will face a wave of furious constituents, incensed by the Government's harsh and unwarranted treatment of veterans while seemingly rewarding those who waged a 30-year campaign against the British people.' It comes ahead of a debate in Parliament on Monday about the proposed changes to the Legacy Act, with several hundred veterans expected to descend on Whitehall to protest. The Prime Minister said on Wednesday that Sir David 'knows this is a serious issue' but that the phrasing of his question 'did not really reflect that seriousness'. He told MPs: 'We have to tread carefully and we have to get this right, and I'll work with him on that, but we don't get there by cheapening the debate. 'It's not about political point-scoring. I've worked in Northern Ireland, I've spoken to many of the people affected and I know that we must get this right.' He added: 'We have to do that in a serious way to address the issues of the past, of course, in a way that has support of victims and survivors. 'That is a key test for me because without the support of victims and survivors I think it's very hard in Northern Ireland to come up with something that will have the confidence of everybody in Northern Ireland, which is why we have to work in the way we do'. The Northern Ireland veterans' tsar told The Telegraph last month that up to 70 former soldiers could end up 'in the dock' over their actions against the IRA on behalf of the British government. Col Collins said: 'Families across the UK sent their sons to keep the peace in Northern Ireland. Many never came home. 'As summer recess nears, constituents should ask their MPs a simple question: Whose side are you on? 'Will they support costly historical revisionism that diverts funds from the NHS and welfare, or will they stand with the majority of British citizens and reject baseless prosecutions?' The shameful betrayal by the PM over our Northern Ireland veterans Watching on from the Special Gallery in the House of Commons during Prime Minister's Questions, I was dumbstruck by the Prime Minister's response to a detailed question from Sir David Davis MP regarding the protection of Northern Ireland Veterans. The PM was frankly frivolous and even disdainful to even be questioned on this very important issue, didn't you know he worked in Northern Ireland? Here, I thought, is a man who needs to play to the benches behind him, a man who knows he is on the wrong side of an argument that may well contribute to his downfall. Feeling the intense scrutiny of his own Labour MPs, the Prime Minister resorted to downplaying an issue that will confront every Labour MP during the upcoming recess. As they return to their constituencies, they will face a wave of furious constituents, incensed by the Government's harsh and unwarranted treatment of veterans while seemingly rewarding those who waged a 30-year campaign against the British people. Before Labour MPs face this reality, a Parliamentary debate is set for Monday, prompted by a petition titled 'Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecution,' which has amassed over 167,000 signatures in just over two months. In my view, this is fundamentally about stopping the politically-driven harassment of our veterans, which seeks to distort and rewrite history. This Labour Government has already stated that they plan to repeal the Northern Ireland Legacy Act, making it again possible to mount criminal cases against armed forces Veterans whilst simultaneously making it easier for those who waged war against the state and their political representatives, including Gerry Adams, to gain compensation for 30 years of malice and terrorism. After three decades of violence, the Provisional IRA and Sinn Féin, widely seen as its political wing, entered a peace process led by the Government. As part of this, the Blair administration issued over 200 'comfort letters' to individuals suspected of serious crimes, providing them with written assurances that they would not face prosecution. No such guarantees were given to the MoD, nor were they considered necessary at the time. Over 90 per cent of killings during the Troubles were perpetuated by illegal paramilitary groups, with the IRA responsible for the vast majority, including most murders within their own Catholic community. In contrast, the police and armed forces accounted for less than 10 per cent of killings, with nearly all of these, lawful, under clear and established rules of engagement. In the rare instances of wrongdoing, charges were brought, and cases were adjudicated. The state acted to protect civilians from sectarian violence. Through the immense service and bravery of soldiers and police officers, full-scale civil war was averted. Tragically, 800 soldiers and over 300 police officers killed, with thousands more left permanently injured. Now, in an effort to rewrite history for a new generation, malevolent forces are seeking prosecutions for events, often over 50 years ago, in the knowledge that many, if not all, have no chance of achieving a prosecution. But the goal isn't justice, it's creating a new narrative. A revised version of history, funded by UK taxpayers, designed to suit the agenda of our former enemies. While Sinn Féin has mobilised a cadre of republican-sympathising lawyers, bankrolled by public funds, the Ministry of Defence and Northern Ireland Office are locked in negotiation. Indeed, one Northern Ireland MP told me the Irish Government is effectively driving the Northern Ireland Office's approach. The process now resembles a Dutch auction. The Irish Government wants up to 14 cases, possibly involving multiple veterans, while the MoD argues for none. A compromise looms, with several weak cases likely proceeding, despite the passage of time and scant evidence. What do the respective governments gain? For Starmer, it's the prestige of appearing progressive on the global stage, earning praise from left-leaning circles for confronting history, even if that history is distorted or fabricated. Additionally, some also have a very close personal interest. Notably, the Attorney General, Lord Hermer, previously represented former Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams against claims made against him. For the Irish Government, a historic coalition of two parties once divided by the Irish Civil War, the stakes are nearly existential. With Sinn Féin resurgent and poised to potentially seize power in the next election, the coalition must outshine Sinn Féin's republican credentials to secure their political survival. Targeting British veterans offers a convenient way to do so, especially when the British taxpayer foots the bill. This issue extends far beyond Ireland. Families across the UK sent their sons to keep the peace in Northern Ireland. Many never came home. As summer recess nears, constituents should ask their MPs a simple question: Whose side are you on? Will they support costly historical revisionism that diverts funds from of the NHS and welfare, or will they stand with the majority of British citizens and reject baseless prosecutions? Following last week's contentious Welfare Bill vote and its chaotic whipping process, MPs' responses could shape the Prime Minister's future. Perhaps that explains his decision to play the man and not the issue in his dismissive response to David Davis MP. Our nation expects better.
Daily Mail
12-07-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Keir Starmer facing new two-tier row over claims he is putting rights of IRA members above British veterans of the Troubles
Sir Keir Starmer will tomorrow be accused of preparing to restart a 'conveyor belt of injustice' against British veterans of the Troubles. The Prime Minister will face claims that he is putting his 'obsession with human rights' over the rights of ageing UK ex-servicemen. Ministers will face fury at a debate in Westminster over their decision to repeal the Tories ' 2023 Legacy Act, which was designed to end a legal witch hunt against soldiers who served in Northern Ireland. The debate is being held after nearly 170,000 people signed a petition calling on the Government not to allow veterans to be prosecuted for 'doing their duty in combating terrorism' during the Troubles. Sir Keir insisted last week that he had to make changes because the Conservative legislation had been ruled unlawful and had granted immunity to terrorists. The PM also said that the law hadn't been supported by communities in Northern Ireland. Government sources are privately raising hopes that in any new allegations, British troops would not be dragged through inquests and the legal system, but instead dealt with by an independent commission. But last night Tories hit back at what has been condemned by critics as 'two-tier justice', with fears that terror suspects would be treated more lightly than ex-servicemen. Former Cabinet minister Sir David Davis said: 'The only acceptable policy is one that shuts down this witch hunt of patriotic and honourable soldiers once and for all. 'These soldiers put their lives at risk to defend our country and stop the murderous rampage of the IRA and other terrorist groups.' And ex-defence minister Mark Francois said: 'The Labour Government is now threatening to restart a potential conveyor belt of injustice against brave British veterans. As veterans have said, this is two-tier justice all because of Keir Starmer's obsession with human rights.' In an article for LBC, Mr Francois warned that Labour's proposals would make it easier for ex-Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams to sue the Government over wrongful detention. The Legacy Act had blocked Mr Adams and others interned without trial in the 1970s from claiming compensation. However, Sir Keir said last week he would find 'every conceivable way' to stop Mr Adams or similar claimants getting damages. The Mail's Stop the SAS Betrayal campaign is pressing the Government to halt the repeal of the Legacy Act or table a proper alternative. In the Commons last week, Northern Ireland veterans looked on as Sir David thanked them for 'their 'courage in defending our country and our democracy against the first scourge of terrorism'. Former British armed forces members and supporters take part in a 'Respect Our Veterans' parade and rally, following the collapse of the trial in Belfast of two British soldiers over the killing of Official IRA leader Joe McCann -- May 8, 2021 But he warned that if the Government get the revised legacy legislation wrong, 'at least 50 innocent retired veterans will be exposed to legal persecution for crimes they did not commit'. Sir David told MPs: 'The Prime Minister knows that every time a paramilitary was killed in Northern Ireland by a British soldier, it triggered a thorough investigation. 'No bullet went unscrutinised.' He added: 'Our soldiers were held to the highest standards of law. 'The IRA were not; they tortured, shot men in the back, forced families to watch their menfolk being murdered, and killed women and children with bombs. 'Yet we are willing to prosecute our own men, who were forced to make life-and-death decisions in split seconds.' And he threw down a challenge to Ministers, saying: 'On Monday, when we debate this matter in Westminster Hall, will the Government protect our veterans, or will they sacrifice them to politically motivated lawyers who are trying to rewrite history with a pack of lies?' But last night, a Labour spokesman insisted the Government would support the servicemen who took part in the British Armed Forces' 'Operation Banner' deployment in Northern Ireland which last from 1969 to 2007. The spokesman told the Mail on Sunday: 'This Government's commitment to our Operation Banner veterans who served with honour and distinction is unshakeable. 'We will always support them and will put in place the strongest possible protections. 'The Tories' unlawful Legacy Act made false and undeliverable promises to our veterans about immunity and blocked investigations into the unsolved killings of British troops in Northern Ireland. 'That is why the Legacy Act was opposed by many, including Armed Forces families who lost relatives serving in Northern Ireland.
The Sun
10-07-2025
- Politics
- The Sun
I watched arrogant Lucy Letby as she simmered in the dock & saw chilling evidence that proves she IS an evil baby killer
Journalist Nigel Bunyan also reveals why he believes any future appeal is likely to fall short VOID OF HUMANITY I watched arrogant Lucy Letby as she simmered in the dock & saw chilling evidence that proves she IS an evil baby killer IN the eyes of the law she's a cold-blooded serial killer who murdered seven babies and tried to kill seven others at the hospital where she worked during a year-long reign of terror. But doubts over Lucy Letby's guilt have been slowly gaining traction, with her supporters - who include prominent politicians - expressing growing fears she was the victim of a miscarriage of justice. Advertisement 12 Doubts over killer nurse Lucy Letby's guilt have been gaining traction Credit: PA 12 Nigel Farage has said there are serious questions over Lucy Letby's case Credit: Simon Jones 12 Notes were found in Letby's room in which she called herself 'evil' Credit: PA The killer nurse, 35, is serving 15 whole-life orders in prison for the murder of seven babies between 2015 and 2016 at Countess of Chester hospital. She was also found guilty in 2023 of trying to kill seven others, but has always maintained her innocence. Advertisement Last week Reform leader Nigel Farage said there were 'serious questions' about the case which have left him with a 'horrible feeling' Letby might have been a 'very convenient scapegoat' and should be retried. Meanwhile Conservative MP David Davis is convinced her conviction is a 'clear miscarriage of justice'. But earlier this month it emerged Letby could be facing more charges over the deaths of babies at hospitals she worked in. Nigel Bunyan has been a journalist for more than four decades and covered the trials of GP Harold Shipman, the child killers of James Bulger, and the Rochdale grooming gang. He attended Lucy Letby's main trial and the retrial that followed. Advertisement As her case attracts more scrutiny than ever before, here Nigel details why he believes "beyond doubt" that she IS guilty, and that justice prevailed... IN the make-believe, boxset world of Netflix, Disney+ and the like, Lucy Letby just HAS to be innocent! A prominent Tory MP has said so. So too has Letby's shiny new defence barrister and a group of international experts who've rallied, unbidden, to her cause, without having been anywhere near either trial. Lucy Letby's legal team launch fresh bid against convictions for murdering babies – as new evidence is revealed The only catch is that in the real world – the one not liberally sprinkled with fairy dust theories of perceived innocence – Letby is the real deal. She actually IS a nailed-on serial killer of tiny, defenceless babies. Advertisement After attending her trial - and the retrial that followed it - I have no doubt whatsoever of her guilt. She is serving a whole life term for seven murders and seven attempted murders after being found guilty not just by one jury – but by TWO. Sadly, serial killers don't come with an identifying mark on their foreheads. And they don't always confess. But I watched every moment of her evidence at Manchester Crown Court, looking for some spark of authenticity, of humanity; something to make me doubt the prosecution case. I looked in vain. All I could see was a defendant standing behind a blank, unyielding wall of denials. Advertisement 12 Letby denied her involvement in the death of seven babies Credit: The Mega Agency 12 Nigel reported on high profile cases including killer GP Harold Shipman Credit: Alamy She was a woman shielding herself with simmering resentment, sullen in the dock and equally so when giving evidence. Dr Harold Shipman had something of the same aura – arrogant to the end, content to simply deny all charges. Dr Harold Shipman had something of the same aura – arrogant to the end, content to simply deny all charges Nigel Bunyan By the time Letby was called to give evidence we'd already seen the now-infamous Post-it notes she scribbled in the bedroom of her house around the corner from the Countess of Chester hospital where she committed her crimes. Advertisement 'I am evil. I did this,' she'd written. 'I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough to care for them (and) I am a horrible person.' Her supporters looked to other lines that could be interpreted as indicators of innocence. 'I haven't done anything wrong,' for example. And, 'Why me?' For all that the evidence against Letby was largely – and inevitably - circumstantial, taken as a whole it was totally convincing on all but a few of the charges. It's one thing to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, but in her case that happened far too many times. Her colleagues who saw her as a friend didn't want to 'think the unthinkable' - that she was the enemy within - but eventually they had no option. Advertisement It wasn't just the statistical oddities about her presence; it was an innate feeling of unease among those who had once trusted her without question. Far too many babies were collapsing on the unit for there to be any other explanation than sabotage by a member of staff. And there were no other suspects. Chilling evidence 12 Lucy worked on a neonatal unit at the hospital in Chester Credit: CPS 12 Cops found notes where she called herself evil and claimed 'I killed them all' Credit: PA 12 Letby is accused of creating an air embolism in some of the babies which can cause death Credit: Getty Advertisement 12 A stock photo of an X-ray showing a venous air embolism (not the image of the victim shown in court during the trial) Credit: Kenneth Kizer/ For me, the case finally fell into place as I spent long nights compiling a 17,000-word timeline. Suddenly, for all the woolliness of the case as it unfolded in court, I could see how Letby had moved so deftly in the shadows, aided by her colleagues' understandable reluctance to believe ill of her. Many of them counted her as a friend, and when she broke down in apparent distress over the infants dying on her watch, they instinctively reached out in support. Letby's cynical manipulation is typified by the very first of her killings: one day volunteering to take group selfies during a colleague's hen-do in York, the next injecting Baby A with air 90 minutes after coming back on duty in Chester. Advertisement Before the jury reached their verdict I knew what it should be. Suddenly, for all the woolliness of the case as it unfolded in court, I could see how Letby had moved so deftly in the shadows, aided by her colleagues' understandable reluctance to believe ill of her Nigel Bunyan And the court of social media who protest her innocence may have taken a different view if they had seen all the evidence, as I have. During the trial a chilling image was shown to the jury: the X-ray of one of the dead babies, showing a white line of what could only be air running parallel to his spine. And the only explanation for that air was for it to have been forced into the infant's system. Which is how Lucy Letby achieved something that the reviewing paediatrician Sandie Bohin had never previously seen in neonates – she made some of them scream. Had the prosecution found the courage to release that image some doubters may be silenced. Advertisement But the CPS refused, saying it formed part of an individual's medical records. Medical expertise 12 Mark McDonald has taken up representing Letby and has got medical experts on her side Credit: PA 12 There has been a huge wave of public support for Letby claiming she is innocent Credit: CHRIS NEILL Much has been made of the international panel of medical experts drawn together by Letby's new barrister, Mark McDonald. But it is hugely significant that Ben Myers, the lawyer who led her defence in both trials, made the very deliberate decision NOT to call ANY of the medical experts he had briefed on the case. Advertisement In fact, the only defence witness aside from Letby was Lorenzo Mansutti, a plumber, who spoke briefly about drainage problems at the Countess. Myers' reasoning was clearly tactical, perhaps made because he doubted the ability of those potential witnesses to counter the allegations that Letby harmed babies mostly with injections of air or insulin. Lucy Letby achieved something that the reviewing paediatrician Sandie Bohin had never previously seen in neonates – she made some of them scream Nigel Bunyan Any future appeal is likely to fall short unless McDonald can come up with a satisfactory answer to Myers' decision. Ultimately the jury was swayed by the assertion of Nick Johnson KC, the lead prosecutor, that Letby had been caught out by 'a constellation of coincidences' that had no other plausible explanation. For all the protests to the contrary, I don't believe for one second that Letby was set up as a scapegoat. Advertisement She was simply found out by colleagues who finally realised she was the killer in their midst. Almost two years on, we now have the prospect of Letby facing a third trial. On top of that three members of the leadership team at the Countess were arrested last week on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter and may yet face trial themselves. And then there is the Thirlwall Inquiry into the killer's activities and the conduct of NHS personnel at the time. It's due to report next year. So all in all, overwhelmingly bad news for those wearing yellow butterfly emblems in support of their fake heroine. Advertisement Genuine miscarriages of justice do occur. Of course they do. But they're extremely rare. I abhor the white noise repeatedly being drummed up in her name - often by people who should know better Nigel Bunyan Years ago, for example, I wrote about Stefan Kiszko, who was exonerated over a murder he couldn't possibly have committed. But Letby? I just don't see it. More than that, I abhor the white noise repeatedly being drummed up in her name - often by people who should know better - while Letby herself remains silent; brooding in HMP Prison Bronzefield, Surrey. For me, as for the families, hers is a name that speaks only of sickening cruelty and betrayal. Advertisement As one of the mums said recently: 'You don't want to see her face, you don't want to hear her name, you don't want to hear people shouting that she's innocent. "She's not innocent, she was found guilty in a court of law."
