Interesting court martial on the horizon, General in the dock.

No it wouldn't, there is a difference between a false allegation and someone who has committed a crime but hasn't been found guilty.
I was a witness for a sexually assault case the nonce had 4 charges against him, he was found guilty on two, he wasn't innocent of the other two, its just the CM couldnt prove beyond all reasonable doubt that he was guilty.
I was following logic
 
Yes , but in law the allegation has not been proven so the logic follows the allegation was false.
No it doesn't. It simply means that the case couldn't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
I was following logic

How? Someone might be guilty but if a court cant prove it then they are found not guilty. Its not logic to suggest that the victim in that case has made a false allegation.
 
How? Someone might be guilty but if a court cant prove it then they are found not guilty. Its not logic to suggest that the victim in that case has made a false allegation.
I was responding to your post about prosecuting complainants
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
Not at all, and if that was your inference it's perhaps a good job you don't practise law.
I take it that there is a reason that lawyers don't get invited on to juries!
 
His marriage is now permanently soured and his promotion prospects has hit a brick wall?
All because some female squaddie who was probably as pissed as he was made some accusation, " she told him to **** off" which in itself oozes class, name her I say.
 
I was responding to your post about prosecuting complainants

This one that quite clearly says

People who make false allegations are usually charged and their names made public.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
His marriage is now permanently soured and his promotion prospects has hit a brick wall?
All because some female squaddie who was probably as pissed as he was made some accusation, " she told him to **** off" which in itself oozes class, name her I say.
While I agree with the sentiment I don't think she needs to be named - two wrongs and all that. While her name may not be splashed about the media, unlike the accused now innocent party, she will now be well known in her Corps.
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
For example, police/CPS often look for other victims to come forward; a good example being the case of youth football coaches abusing young players.
I would agree that the accused should be kept anonymous unless the investigating authorities need to release it because they have a strong reason to believe that there may be other victims or witnesses who may come forward.
 
Exactly, so they remain innocent therefore did not do what the complainant alleges.

In an English sense, I don’t agree with the last bit - “did not do”, universally. If the defendant say has a cast iron alibi that he was somewhere else at the time, and is found not guilty, he absolutely “did not do” it. At the other end of the scale, say a person who is in court charged with assault/ABH/GBH on a burglar in his own home, and kicked seven bells out of the burglar. A jury might find his “self defence” reasonable and return a not guilty verdict. He did however, kick seven bells out of the burglar.

Other variations might be a guilty-as-sin defendant, with either a sharp defence lawyer, poor prosecutor, or both, and he gets off on a technicality (eg Police or court procedural error). In the “eyes of the law”, he may be found not guilty, and therefore preserves his presumption of innocence, but not for the reason that “he didn’t do it”.
 
In an English sense, I don’t agree with the last bit - “did not do”, universally. If the defendant say has a cast iron alibi that he was somewhere else at the time, and is found not guilty, he absolutely “did not do” it. At the other end of the scale, say a person who is in court charged with assault/ABH/GBH on a burglar in his own home, and kicked seven bells out of the burglar. A jury might find his “self defence” reasonable and return a not guilty verdict. He did however, kick seven bells out of the burglar.

Other variations might be a guilty-as-sin defendant, with either a sharp defence lawyer, poor prosecutor, or both, and he gets off on a technicality (eg Police or court procedural error). In the “eyes of the law”, he may be found not guilty, and therefore preserves his presumption of innocence, but not for the reason that “he didn’t do it”.
Agreed, other than, in the eyes of the law he did not do it.
 

Latest Threads

Top