In message , Richard Miller
writes
>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.
Well, apart from the possibility that as there was no case to answer,
that should have been recognised earlier and the case perhaps not
brought.
--
Mike_B |