|
Welcome to the Australian Ford Forums forum. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and inserts advertising. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features without post based advertising banners. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. Please Note: All new registrations go through a manual approval queue to keep spammers out. This is checked twice each day so there will be a delay before your registration is activated. |
|
The Pub For General Automotive Related Talk |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
28-11-2011, 08:47 AM | #11 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,876
|
Quote:
The legal system does not work like that, for this paticular offence the burden of proof lies with the balance of probabilities. Before giving evidence, Naddis would swear to tell the truth, the court then MUST make an assumption that Naddis is telling the truth. If the prosecutor does not contest, then fine. If the prosecutor presents a version which conflicts with Naddis evidence, then the court weighs up the balance of probablities. On the balance of probabilites the court would probably side with Naddis, a police officer would have pulled over hundreds of cars in their career, the court would be quite suspicious if the officer could recall when giving evidence with absolute clarity on the events for that particular roadside stop. Naddis on the other hand would have rarely been pulled over and so he would on the balance of probabilties be able to give a more accurate version of events. One of the worst things to happen to the legal system are shows like CSI and things like that, people now assume you need DNA evidence, expert eye witnesses, tracking devices to be able to defend a charge, this is not the case at all. Personally I think they might withdraw the charge before the hearing if you challenge it, if not, it should only go for about 15 mins. |
|||