In message , Richard Miller
writes
>In message , Mike_B
> writes
>>
>>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.
>>
>
>Of course, there being no case to answer could be down to a key witness
>not attending trial when they were expected to do so. That is as common
>a cause of such submissions as the prosecution not actually having a
>valid case to start with. It *may* be that the prosecution simply got
>it wrong and the case should have been dropped weeks ago. That
>certainly happens. But there most certainly is not sufficient evidence
>here to conclude that this *is* the case.
"....that there was no case to answer after it emerged that the
scratches were accidental". Doesn't sound like the cause was a witness
failing to show up and sounds like the sort of thing that a defendant
might explain fairly early on in questioning. One wonders how this
information "emerged" but you are right, we don't have enough
information to say that the case should never have been brought *or*
that it was brought properly and taken to its natural conclusion as you
believe..
--
Mike_B |