Re: So, what have the liars been charged with...?

National Anthems:[ www.national-anthems.net ] ++
Travel:[ Europe ] [ Asia ] [ USA-Canada ] [ Latin-America ] [ Africa ] [ Australia ] [ more ]

[ Australia legal ] [ U.K. legal ] [ U.S. visa ] [ Immigration ] [ Marriage based U.S visa ]

[ Home ][ united-kingdom_legal Home ] [ First Article ][ Previous Article ] [ Next Article ] [ Newest Article ]

Re: So, what have the liars been charged with...?

Posted on: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:09:27 +0000 (UTC)

In message <38cju3dtm4gcd8t5br457afvv83n8je35d@4ax.com>, Mike Ross
writes

>From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/7313130.stm
>
>"A woman who told a gang of swearing teenage girls to be quiet spent 16
>hours in
>a police cell after being falsely accused of assault.

Says who? Oh yes, says the defendant.

[Snip]
>
>Despite protesting her innocence, the mother-of-seven was held in a police cell
>for 16 hours before being charged with common assault."
>
>"On the first day, magistrates agreed to a defence submission that there was no
>case to answer after it emerged the scratches were accidental."

The way this is phrased appears to be a tacit admission that the
defendant caused the scratches.

This looks like a classic example of the news report taking only the
defendant's version of events, and presenting it as if it were gospel.
There were scratches. They appear to have been caused by the defendant.
There appears to have been no proof of intent. This does not look like a
miscarriage of justice to me, but a case where the police and Courts
followed the proper course to a natural conclusion.
--
Richard Miller

[ Home ][ united-kingdom_legal Home ] [ First Article ][ Previous Article ] [ Next Article ] [ Newest Article ]