If There Was Any Doubt Of Labour's Anti...
News6 mins ago
Legal Advise
One of my friends is currently under investigation for sexual assault against a girl in a back of a taxi. She has claimed that he put his hand on her leg (overclothing) and started to move his had up, she took it away and then he put his hand on her leg again to which she said stop it. My friend has denied this claiming he would not do such a thing and would have no reason to, however he cannot back this up as he was too drunk to remember the whole night. The taxi driver has claimed that he saw nothing. The girl accusing him has also said that the music was on in the taxi, which could be an apparent reason the taxi driver never heard her say stop either. My question is, in a situation like this, would it go to court and if it did would he even stand a chance? I know that this is not in his nature at all and he wouldn't do anything like this, but to me it sounds like he's pretty stuck. Thanks.
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Ben1985. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Yes Scotland is, I think, alone amongst countries with evolved judicial systems where the uncorroborated evidence of one witness would not support a conviction. The Carloway Report (I think published in 2012) recommended the abolition of this rule but I'm not sure whether the recommendation was acted upon.
Turning to England and Wales, the uncorroborated evidence of a single witness is certainly sufficient to lead to a conviction. The strength and reliability of the evidence would be considered by the CPS before authorising charges. If the matter did go to trial it would be for the Bench of Magistrates or the jury to decide whether such evidence was sufficient to prove the matter beyond reasonable doubt.
Bear in mind, Ben, that if it did go to court your friend does not have to prove that he did not do it. The onus is on the prosecution to prove that he did.
Turning to England and Wales, the uncorroborated evidence of a single witness is certainly sufficient to lead to a conviction. The strength and reliability of the evidence would be considered by the CPS before authorising charges. If the matter did go to trial it would be for the Bench of Magistrates or the jury to decide whether such evidence was sufficient to prove the matter beyond reasonable doubt.
Bear in mind, Ben, that if it did go to court your friend does not have to prove that he did not do it. The onus is on the prosecution to prove that he did.
Alison Saunders the DPP ( head honcho in this sector ) is adamant that this sort of case should go to court, whereas previously it might not have done
so yes it might. .... and the usual thing: he needs then to get lawyered up.
This explains why the conviction rate is plummeting.
Clearly he has to wait and see if he is charged....
and does he stand a chance ? O god yeah - conviction rate in Yewtree that you read about every day in the papers is 2 / 17.
So..no he isnt stuck, yes he should defend, and one thing is certain:
the lawyers make the marnay !
so yes it might. .... and the usual thing: he needs then to get lawyered up.
This explains why the conviction rate is plummeting.
Clearly he has to wait and see if he is charged....
and does he stand a chance ? O god yeah - conviction rate in Yewtree that you read about every day in the papers is 2 / 17.
So..no he isnt stuck, yes he should defend, and one thing is certain:
the lawyers make the marnay !
no woof I dont see a problem in defending the case
I see a real problem of throwing up your arms and saying yeah well my frenz say I probably did it....
and in the case I was involved in ( as a witness ) the judge in the summing up said, one of the parties is blatantly lying and your job members of the jury is to decide who.... ( acquittal in eight mins )
I see a real problem of throwing up your arms and saying yeah well my frenz say I probably did it....
and in the case I was involved in ( as a witness ) the judge in the summing up said, one of the parties is blatantly lying and your job members of the jury is to decide who.... ( acquittal in eight mins )
Thanks for all the points, there is a slight twist to this case however as there was a witness who was sat next to the both of them (him on the right, and those 2 on the left, to which he was friends with the guy accused (proven) and sleeping with the accuser (mentioned but not proven). On his first statement he says that he cant remember anything and then on his second statement he says that he didnt see the defendant do anything although he wasnt really paying attention)....the plot thickens...
1 to 10 of 10
