Richard Miller wrote:
> In message , Mike_B
> writes
>> 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.
>>
>
> 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.
My first thought was that the defendant had (slightly) amended her
version of events, shortly before the trial.
Her original line may have been that no possibility of injury took place
at the scene. But the prosecution had plenty of witnesses that hadn't
seen the injury being caused but had seen the injury itself, some
seconds afterwards. And a victim who insisted that she had been pushed
into a wall/hedge.
Say the defendant then changed her evidence to say that the injured
person had forced her way past and *may* have brushed against the
wall/thorny hedge, and hurt herself in doing so.
It then comes down to one person's word against another - with the
evidence equally supporting both versions of events. The prosecution may
quite rightly decide that the case is no longer worth pursuing.
What prompted the defendant to change her story at that time, so close
to the trial, I couldn't possibly say. ;)
--
Sue |