Speeding Summons?

ChumLee

Minrich wrote: »

Thanks - I was going to say . I will refrain from saying to stop you continuing in the same vane .

Well as you don't even know what a crime is I'm sure many have already decided it's none.

ChumLee

Minrich wrote: »

I suggest that you may be a law student , did you see that ? No person dealing with "Crime" for a living would argue so much about what a Crime was , for what purpose ? Defence solicitor in the making !

As you don't know what a crime is other than your wrong understanding you're hardly worthy to argue with. You're in the same class as the one who thinks you don't need evidence to allege a crime.

Rover_Driver

ChumLee wrote: »

You're in the same class as the one who thinks you don't need evidence to allege a crime.

You don't.


As in post 188, the mother in the Primark case, alleged a crime in which investigation found no evidence of a crime - but she had made the allegation.

ChumLee

Rover_Driver wrote: »

You don't.


As in post 188, the mother in the Primark case, alleged a crime in which investigation found no evidence of a crime - but she had made the allegation.

And what was she done for?

Was it perverting the course of justice? So she gave the police a statement of evidence when making the allegation.

So the police had evidence of her alleged crime that was then used to convict her.

Rover_Driver

ChumLee wrote: »

And what was she done for?

Was it perverting the course of justice? So she gave the police a statement of evidence when making the allegation.

So the police had evidence of her alleged crime that was then used to convict her.

Her statement could be evidence against her for the offence of perverting the course of justice.


When she made the allegation (which may have been verbally before she made the statement), there could be no evidence of the crime she alleged, if no crime had been committed.

ChumLee

Rover_Driver wrote: »

Her statement could be evidence against her for the offence of perverting the course of justice.


When she made the allegation, there could be no evidence of the crime she alleged, if no crime had been committed.

Her statement was the evidence at the time she reported it, if there was no evidence as a result of her allegation/telling the police about it. They would not have recorded or investigated the original report.

Or maybe you're claiming a one on one common assault without cctv evidence cannot happen?

Rover_Driver

ChumLee wrote: »

Her statement was the evidence at the time she reported it,

Not evidence, (as the crime did not occur) just her word about what happened. Which was sufficient for the police to record the matter and investigate.


Which one reason why reports are often referred to as allegations, until a crime has been confirmed

Mercdriver

Minrich wrote: »

I suggest that you may be a law student , did you see that ? No person dealing with "Crime" for a living would argue so much about what a Crime was , for what purpose ? Defence solicitor in the making !

Wrong, it's the number of people that say to police: "why aren't you out catching criminals?" when in fact that's what they have done. You break a law, then you are a criminal. And many many lower level recordable offences are overseen by the same magistrates that greet people alleged as having commited motoring offences like speeding.

ChumLee

Rover_Driver wrote: »

Not evidence, (as the crime did not occur) just her word about what happened. Which was sufficient for the police to record the matter and investigate.


Which one reason why reports are often referred to as allegations, until a crime has been confirmed

So when is a crime confirmed then?

Mercdriver

ChumLee wrote: »

So when is a crime confirmed then?

I would say on conviction or when the defendant pleads guilty. Before that it is simply an allegation. Hence why newspapers have to use the word alleged and put the crime in inverted commas until such a time as the suspect is convicted.