General Discussion
OOps Another technicality
As I have said many times before if authorities -who are professionals- did things correctly I would not have a problem with them. Did they knowingly falsify the documents? who knows?
THOUSANDS of Hampshire motorists may have their
speed camera convictions quashed following a landmark
court hearing.
Two Hampshire motorists have had their convictions
overturned after it emerged the allegations against them
were based on false documents.
Proceedings against Barrington Wells and Michael
Halliwell collapsed because of a paperwork blunder.
Speed camera opponents say the hearing could lead to
thousands more motorists following their lead fearing they
too were the subject of unsafe convictions.
Southampton Crown Court heard how speed camera
bosses signed and wrongly backdated a vital certificate
proving when Mr Halliwell had been sent a notice of
prosecution.
It was dated October 27, 2004 but it was revealed in court
that it had actually been signed in February 2005.
It was sent to magistrates as part of evidence against the
66- year-old, but yesterday cases against both men were
dropped after prosecution lawyers admitted the document,
sent from Winchester central ticket office, was false.
A technicality is a legal point that leads to a verdict of which one disapproves.
A well-made point of law is one that leads to a verdict with which one agrees.
Similar definitions can be provided for "unscrupulous lawyer" and "brilliant advocate".
Another good word is "fact", as in "the facts in the case are these", a standard introduction from a Crown Prosecution Service lawyer. It is derived from "facio", to make, construct or, interestingly enough, frame.
Don
One of Roy's comments " I see in today's Herald Express that regular law-breaker Peter Harry has once again cost the law-abiding taxpayers a fortune.
Yet makes no comment on the actions of the Police/SCP as to how much public money they wasted using false documents.