I Think I've Found P Ps True...
Society & Culture1 min ago
will she be found guilty?
i recently asked a question should she be able to drive?and told the story about my brothers car anyway we recived a letter saying she has pleaded not guilty to all the offences that i stated is there anyone out there who could give me some kind of clue to whether or not she will walk she must have pleaded not guilty for a reason?
Answers
1 to 5 of 5
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jenpops. 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.
A court can't convict someone of an offence unless the prosecution have shown that there can be no reasonable doubt as to the person's guilt.
If the magistrates think that it's 'quite likely' that the woman was drink-driving, they must acquit her.
If they think it's 'extremely likely', they must acquit her.
If they think it's 'almost certain', they must acquit her.
They can only convict her if they are wholly convinced, beyond reasonable doubt, that she's guilty.
So Mrs Alko will simply try the ploy of saying "I was really shaken up by the crash, so I went home and had a few stiff drinks to steady my nerves. I'd not touched a drop before I got into the car".
The prosecution can't use your statement that the woman smelt of alcohol (as to do so would be to introduce 'hearsay evidence') unless you appear in court yourself, so that your testimony may be cross-examined. (Even so, the woman could suggest that you were mistaken or that she'd recently broken a bottle of gin amongst her shopping in the car, and that was what you smelt).
Courts are, of course, wise to such tactics but they still have to apply the rule that they can't convict someone if their defence team has shown that there's reasonable doubt.
Chris
If the magistrates think that it's 'quite likely' that the woman was drink-driving, they must acquit her.
If they think it's 'extremely likely', they must acquit her.
If they think it's 'almost certain', they must acquit her.
They can only convict her if they are wholly convinced, beyond reasonable doubt, that she's guilty.
So Mrs Alko will simply try the ploy of saying "I was really shaken up by the crash, so I went home and had a few stiff drinks to steady my nerves. I'd not touched a drop before I got into the car".
The prosecution can't use your statement that the woman smelt of alcohol (as to do so would be to introduce 'hearsay evidence') unless you appear in court yourself, so that your testimony may be cross-examined. (Even so, the woman could suggest that you were mistaken or that she'd recently broken a bottle of gin amongst her shopping in the car, and that was what you smelt).
Courts are, of course, wise to such tactics but they still have to apply the rule that they can't convict someone if their defence team has shown that there's reasonable doubt.
Chris
Chris, I think 'almost certain' would lead to conviction; I think that's another way of saying 'beyond reasonable doubt'. After all, they don't have to be absolutely certain, that's why the reasonable doubt standard exists.
She presumably pleaded guilty because she'll try anything to get off - who wouldn't? But she may fail. It will depend on the facts the prosecution present, and how the magistrates feel about it. Some magistrates are tougher than others; they're only human.
She presumably pleaded guilty because she'll try anything to get off - who wouldn't? But she may fail. It will depend on the facts the prosecution present, and how the magistrates feel about it. Some magistrates are tougher than others; they're only human.
1 to 5 of 5
