Chat & Social > The Bar - General Chat
A crushing blow
Bob696:
--- Quote ---You have proven you guilty by failing to supply the necessary documentation... surely?
--- End quote ---
You cannot prove yourself to be guilty it is as simple as that. It is upto the crown to prove you are guilty. Or am I completly misunderstanding the basis of british justice here?
From a UN web page http://www0.un.org/cyberschoolbus/humanrights/declaration/preamble.asp
Quotes from page 10 and 11
--- Quote ---Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
--- End quote ---
A police officer dosn't make up a tribunal, he is not independant (told what to do by his chief constable) and is not impartial (he is a witness to the crime)
--- Quote ---Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
--- End quote ---
Arguing with a PC is a sure fire way to get the max penalty
It is from a kiddies page so it should be simple to understand.
Skibum346:
--- Quote from: "Bob696" ---
--- Quote ---You have proven you guilty by failing to supply the necessary documentation... surely?
--- End quote ---
You cannot prove yourself to be guilty it is as simple as that. It is upto the crown to prove you are guilty. Or am I completly misunderstanding the basis of british justice here?
--- End quote ---
See my previous post responding to this point.
OK, I accept that you should not be required to prove yourself guilty.
However, by failing to provide evidence of tax, insurance & MOT (let alone licence) you have failed to prove your innocence.
What's the diffirence?
Bob696:
--- Quote ---you have failed to prove your innocence.
--- End quote ---
Last time I checked you were innocent until someone proved you guilty. Funily enough the United Nations seems to agree with me.
Skibum346:
--- Quote from: "Bob696" ---From a UN web page http://www0.un.org/cyberschoolbus/humanrights/declaration/preamble.asp
Quotes from page 10 and 11
--- Quote ---Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
--- End quote ---
A police officer dosn't make up a tribunal, he is not independant (told what to do by his chief constable) and is not impartial (he is a witness to the crime)
--- End quote ---
So... why is it an issue that the individual should go through an appeal process...?
There have been posts in here making complaint that the Police are not responding "when they should". The solution it seems is to tie them up in court proceedings instead.
They stop a driver for speeding but can't issue a fixed penalty notice. Instead, they have to fill out the necessary paperwork (probably an hour at least) that's sent on to the CPS who decide whether it should be prosecuted (probably an hour at least), they then (as everyone needs to go to court) refer it for court. It's scheduled by the court system for 18 months hence (terrible backlog you see... all these people will insist on being caught speeding or driving without tax etc, even driving an untaxable vehicle where they shouldn't).
Saturday night, an individual is "in drink" and is arguing with door staff and causing nuisance to other members of the public. Police intervene and warn the individual about his (cuz it usually is!) behaviour and suggests he moves on. The individual ignores this advice and remonstrates with the police, who, give a firmer warning and stronger advice to move on, etc etc till he's nicked. He is detained till Monday morning when he should be going to court to defend his good name (cuz we all need that day in court...) but alas... court is too busy so he is released and sent on his way. 18 months later... a date appears and he is nowhere to be found... apparently he moved house the week after he was arrested to avoid getting a court date. Pity we couldn't just issue him with a fixed penalty ticket (that he could appeal if he felt it unjust... ) that may alter his behaviour next time he is "in drink".
Whatever we think of the much vaunted "British Justice System" it is not capable of dealing in a realistic way with the number of offences that are prevelent in today's society.
As for the police not being independant... who is...? I would argue there are levels of reliability.
I wouldn't want to be accused of murder and have the local constable decide that 30 years should about do it, but the types of offence we are debating... yeah.. ok.. fair cop (if you'll pardon the pun!)
The point made very succinctly by TERMINUS is the days of a quick slap on the back of the head "cuz that's what's best" are long gone. The number of complaints by the public made against police officers and some very high profile cases of abuse have improved the process. Officers heve never been more under the spotlight when it comes to making cases. I for one would not want to work in an environment where every decision I made could result in censure so sver that my livelihood was on the line.
[/i]
Skibum346:
--- Quote from: "Bob696" ---
--- Quote ---you have failed to prove your innocence.
--- End quote ---
Last time I checked you were innocent until someone proved you guilty. Funily enough the United Nations seems to agree with me.
--- End quote ---
OK... words of one syllable...
Every driver is required to have certain documetns and is required by law to produce these at the request of a police officer.
If a driver subsequently fails to produce said documents... the police officer is deemed to have proven that none exist as the driver has had a fair opportunity to produce them.
I accept that I should be careful with my phraseology, however... I thought it to be a straightforward explanation... apparently not.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version