George Michael Pleads Not Guilty

George Michael’s lawyer entered a plea of “not guilty” today at Brent Magistrate’s Court. George did not attend the hearing himself (obviously George is too important to waste his time going to court like the rest of us do when we get in trouble). There will now be a further hearing on March 7, to hear legal arguments; with a trial date provisionally set for April 23.

Well, they’re certainly dragging this out. No idea why. I cannot believe this is a complicated case. The police simply need to present their evidence. George Michael can explain why he was asleep at the wheel of his car while driving it (if indeed he was). And the Magistrate can come to a verdict as to whether George was fit to drive or not.

Actually, though, it seems that George’s not guilty plea is not related to whether or not he was fit to drive. It’s related to the fact that George’s solicitor says that correct police procedures were not followed at the time of the arrest. In other words, George is trying to avoid conviction on a “technicality”. It’s a common tactic.

His solicitor said that blood samples taken from George on the night of his arrest were not legal, meaning the trial should be scrapped. This seems to suggest that the blood tests do actually show drink/drugs were in George’s system that night.

“Are you saying prosecution should not take place because it is unfair?” the magistrate asked.

“Indeed,” replied George’s lawyer.

This matter will be discussed in the March 7 hearing. And then, assuming the prosecution goes ahead, it will happen in late April at the earliest.

Why all concerned need to keep putting off the hearing, and spending my money in the process, (this court is paid for through tax payers money) is beyond me. It’s a simple fucking case. Fucking get on with it. I’m not having a go at George in particular here. I’m having a go at the legal process.

As a side-note, I think George will now just going to have to go ahead and announce the US tour, ahead of putting all this behind him.

As I said before, I’m not sure the legal tactics of George’s defense team are necessarily optimal. The point is: if he can get off on a technicality, then fine. However, if the prosecution goes ahead, he’s making matters worse for himself if he’s found guilty, but hasn’t admitted it. Not a wise move, in my opinion, when this offence can carry a jail term. I hope George’s defense team are sure of themselves in going down the “technicality route.”

Assuming the police have evidence like blood tests, and witness reports of his erratic driving etc…. Then, if he just lied, and said, “I’m sorry. It was a moment of madness. I don’t normally do this kind of thing – I was under a lot of stress at the time, and I was very tired from performing so many concerts. It was a stupid thing to do, and I recognise that someone could have been hurt. I have learnt my lesson, and would never do anything like this again. I have a driver, I will use him.” Well, then I’d have thought he would almost certainly get away with a £5K fine and a 12 month driving ban.

10 thoughts on “George Michael Pleads Not Guilty

  1. If the legal hearing on March 7th doesn’t go his way, I can see him changing his plea – if he’s smart that is.

  2. The only thing is – at that point, any heart-felt lies about “moments of madness” and “I’ve learnt my lesson” won’t be very convincing, will they?

  3. NOW, I’m starting to wonder about a US Tour in the Spring. I don’t know if this whole thing is going to effect his ability to take off on a tour or not. Time wise. I would hope that was considered before he and his legal team decided to take this on and plead not-guilty. Perhaps they are figuring that the courts will drop the charges. Who knows.

  4. Well, Remarkable, that’s his own fault then isn’t it? It was his choice to challenge this. It’s simple really – don’t drive drugged/drunk. If you do drive drugged/drunk and get caught? Admit it instead of wasting police time and taxpayers money.

  5. »In my view, I’m not guilty because (in my view) taking grass isn’t illegal.«
    That’s his opinion, which he is entitled to, but it’s not the judge’s decision. What I find awful is that legal cases need such a long time between the act and final judgement, with the time of uncertainty (guilty or not?) in between.

  6. .y., is that his opinion? This case is nothing to do with smoking grass being legal or illegal. It’s about fitness to drive.

    In this kind of case, my understanding is that there is no absolute requirement to have a blood test in order to bring a successful prosecution. I should imagine the prosecution will have witnesses that will say in court that they saw George asleep at the wheel of his car while he was driving. That would be backed up with the testimony of more than one police officer that attended the scene.

    If the police *don’t* have such witnesses, and there aren’t at least two police officers that can testify, their case may look pretty weak, especially if the court rules that the blood test is inadmissible.

  7. Does anyone knows how much time drugs take to get out of someone’s body? George said that when he was found asleep (if he was asleep) at the traffic lights in Cricklewood, he hadn’t taken any drugs or wasn’t drunk.He was tired. I believe him!! The police took a blood sample from George, could it be that he smoked something a week earlier and this stuff hadn’t yet left his system??

  8. @ Pippi: Really LMAO @ “He smoked somehting A WEEK EARLIER”. How very deluded you are, sweetie.

  9. @remarkable:

    Going the techical way turns out to be right or wrong on the question whether the whitnesses convince the judge with their description with what they have seen at the site. It is not their job to tell the judge that in their opinion George was unfit to drive. You know that people tend to prejudice rather than just tell what they saw.

    The more whitnesses there are the more difficult it is for the judge to reconstruct who has seen what and when. Maybe one can tell, “I saw this car and called the police…” – “When was that exactly?” – “Well, I don’t know…” – You see?😉

    When the judge refuses to take the blood test as an evidence in this case, it might indeed be difficult to prove that George was unfit to drive when a police doctor says he was fit to drive.

    On the other hand, the police had indication that George took drugs because they did find grass in his car earlier that year. They could argue that this was reason enough that George suffers from withdrawal symptoms when he was found slumped behind the wheel. Even if a doctor says he was fit to drive, the only way to prove their assumption was to take a blood test. Nevertheless some people who take drugs manage to go unnoticed, depending on how often they use them.

    George as many other people might be unaware of how long drugs have side effects. That could be one reason George thinks he is innocent. (In this case… OMG otherwise I can imagine him on cloud 9 with an aureola round his head… :D)

    The limit to loose your driving license in Germany is 1 ng (nanogram = 1x1E-9) THC ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahydrocannabinol ) per millilitre blood. Pippi could be right! I found a case where hadn’t smoked weed for 8 days and they still found 2.4ng THC in 1 ml of his blood! (Link on request).

  10. Pingback: If George Michael Goes To Jail, It Will Be His Fault « Remarkable’s Buzzin’ Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s