On Jul 5, 11:17 am, Periander on Google wrote:
> On Jul 5, 2:05 am, Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
>
> > On Jul 5, 1:25 am, "Anon" wrote:
> ...
>
> > Q2 How do you appeal it?
>
> > R v Richards [2006] EWCA Crim 2519http://www.lawreports.co.uk/WLRD/2006/CACRIM/oct0.9.htm
>
> Subject: Re: .ual Offences exclusion zone
> Newsgroups: Periander:uk.legal
> To: "Webmanager_CritEst"
>
> Webmanager_CritEst wrote in news:
> 2b3c648a-2ae2-
> 4b15-a08f-e518ed988...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > R v Richards [2006] EWCA Crim 2519
> >http://www.lawreports.co.uk/WLRD/2006/CACRIM/oct0.9.htm
>
> http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2006/2519.html
>
> Gives the full report, as it happens although I wasn't involved in
> dealing
> with Richard's offending I know all about this case. Made me laugh
> when I
> heard that he was appealing one of Jospeh J's rulings. As teh senior
> resident judge at Croydon CC he was very well known for making
> impeccable
> judgements. Still by going to the CoA Richard's ended up being
> entirely
> crushed, always a good thing for people like him.
>
> IIRC (and I do) at the time he'd just wormed his way into the
> affections of
> a rather silly woman who had a young girl, Richard's was pissed off
> that
> folks were keeping an eye on him to ensure that he didn't slip from
> the
> straight and narrow.
>
> --
>
> Regards or otherwise,
>
> Periander
Of course, the dogmatic and draconian foundation of sand in all these
cases is:
""to prevent members of the public from serious .ual harm"
.. does not stop it being used tor ruin lives, though.
So it goes.
WM |
1514584. > Re: .ual Offences exclusion zone
|
|
|