In message , Cynic
writes
>On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:35:56 GMT, Mike_B
>wrote:
>
>>>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.
>
>I disagree. Whether or not there was a case to answer revolves around
>whether the magistrates considered it BRD on the (probably undisputed)
>facts of the case that the scratches were inflicted deliberately. In
>a case where injury was inflicted during the course of an altercation,
>that may well have been a close decision.
>
With this view, every reported offence should therefore go to a
magistrate to decide.
--
Mike_B |