Without any evidence how the hell do you expect the police / CPS to prosecute. There is no way in a million years a stabbing without the evidence of the only two witnesses would get off the ground ... and there is no way it should unless you want New Labour to remove another plank of our criminal justice system. Victims and witnesses must stand up and be counted.tbaldwin said:
"Search more black people" says Black Police Association head
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
Yes, no problem. It would, however need to be a proscribed weapon - either a firearm or imitation or a "made" or "adapted" offensive weapon. Many knives do not fall in this category and would only be an offence if there was evidence of it being an "intended" offensive weapon, which would normally only come from admissions ... so in a world where every suspect "knows my rights" and says fuck all it may not be possible.Giles said:
That would leave the bladed implement offence (so long as the knife had a blade in excess of 3" cutting edge) ... but that is a pretty trivial offence and unlikely to lead to any significant sentence.
So what? If he went to court he'd just say it was an accident or self-defence or something and nothing the police can say would prove otherwise.tbaldwin said:
People have to realise that it is no good the police "knowing" who did it - it is the Court who have to be convinced and the only way of doing that is by witnesses standing up and being counted. All the moves which have been made to allow statements to be used in some cases, to extend the use of hearsay (all of which have been greeted by a chorus of disapproval at the dismantling of our CJS brick by brick and safeguard by safeguard) can only go so far. The bottom line is that a defendant must have the opportunity to cross examine witnesses who say / heard things. The only way that can happen is if they give evidence personally. It is difficult but I would not want to see a change - otherwise we are all at the mercy of people who make malicious allegations against us and we have no defence against them.
The police and the law can only go so far. And that is right and proper in a free society.
By the way, it looks like Keith Jarrett is trying to recover his street cred!!
He's calling for affirmative action to promote black officers regardless of whether they are the best candidate.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=489631&in_page_id=1770
He's calling for affirmative action to promote black officers regardless of whether they are the best candidate.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=489631&in_page_id=1770
So, in that situation, do you realy think it right that he should be tried and convicted without the opportunity of cross-examining the person he alleges he was defending himself against?tbaldwin said:
There are real problems with witnesses being scared of attending Court. Various measures have been introduced and the situation isn't anywhere near as bad as it is often portrayed (though, as I say, there are reall issues in some areas (geographical and crime type)).
But the answer is NOT to remove the need for witnesses to give evidence that would be a massive retrograde step in our CJS.
I meant it in terms of regaining ground with the BPA membership, by saying something they might support to counterbalance something they very much don't ...JHE said:
Similar threads
