Sounded very suss to me! Has the world gone mad? Well yes it has a bit but this is another story.

Seems that the lawyer in the Iranian's corner, based on the admissibility of some evidence, had his mind made up from the outset that the case wasn't a winner and there would have to be an appeal. But, and here's the not-average bit, instead of marking time and milking the client for his money, instead of fritting away court time and jury time they just stopped.

The defense lawyer and the judge pulled the breaks on time-wasting and dispensed with the traditionally inevitable bollocks by asking the jury at the outset to just say "guilty" so everybody could go home. And the jury did. That's the first time this has ever happened. I guess it was the lawyer's idea, so kudos to him and the judge ah? I guess they've read Bleak House or something and got the point and perhaps I was a bit mean about lawyers last week.

On the other hand, does this set the precident of admitting that "innocence" or "guilt" are play-things for practical economy and not true judgements of justice?

The law journals must be all abuzz. Was this such a good idea or not?