On Fri, 15 May 2009 13:57:52 -0700 (PDT), 1506
wrote:
On May 15, 7:54�*am, furnessvale wrote:
On May 15, 3:24 pm, MIG wrote:
On 15 May, 15:17, Alistair Gunn wrote:
Theo Markettos twisted the electrons to say:
http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w...0_15/05/2009_1...
Interestingly it's claimed that he deleted the photos before the Police
ever got involved ... So where's the actual evidence to prove his
"crime" actually occured?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
The evidence is the distress.
So all that's needed now is to produce a witness who claims to be
distressed to make anything illegal.
"(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove—
(a)that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within
hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or
distress, or
(b)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the
words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible
representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside
that or any other dwelling, or
(c)that his conduct was reasonable."
2 out of 3 in the defendant's favour if he was merely taking
photographs ?
Except for certain specific offences (speeding in a motor vehicle
being one of them), the uncorroberated evidence of a single witness
can be enough for most offences, provided the court believes them.
George
what ever happened to "on the evidence of two or three witnesses a
matter shall be confirmed."?
It doesn't count south of Hadrian's Wall.