Road rules4 mins ago
Do Courts Need 100% Evidence To Convict Someone?
If someone is being charged with an allegation of some sort by another and both parties are saying something different. And the CPS cant decide so allows it to court. Can one be found guilty by the other persons word or do they need bonfire proof before they say guilty?
Answers
Yes, if the jury is convinced 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the victim is telling the truth and the accused is lying. In civil court the standard is the 'balance of probabilitie
22:41 Sat 17th Aug 2013
People are properly convicted when it's their word against another all the time. Juries are quite good at spotting a liar !
The only restraint is that the CPS won't pursue a case unless they think it is in the public interest to prosecute and they think that there's a good chance of securing a conviction.
The only restraint is that the CPS won't pursue a case unless they think it is in the public interest to prosecute and they think that there's a good chance of securing a conviction.
Its a contrary to section 4a (1) and 5 of public order act, to do with use threatening words or behavior. My sister has had a long going dispute with her neighbor and despite there being no record of any kind of abuse on her, she now faces a charge. She does have 2 witnesses but im confused as there is no evidence to support this women allegations. So my sister is naturally worried that she could be convicted just on the say so of this women. Any help is gratefully appreciated
In many rape cases, assault cases, fraud, theft it is often one person's word against another.
Take rape. There may be physical evidence such as semen and bruising to prove that intercourse did take place. The accused is admitting he had intercourse. He says it was consensual and she 'liked it rough', she says it was rape.
In cases of assault, the victim has a broken jaw. The accused admits he punched him but claims he was hit first and then the victim came at him with a knife - the accused claims self defence. A knife was found but no fingerprints to prove anything.
In fraud cases the accused admits that he did cash cheques to the value of x amount, but states the money was a gift. The victim states he was swindled out of the money.
Same with theft. Was the item stolen or a gift, or did the accused buy the item in good faith?
If 100% evidence was needed very few cases would get to court and there would be no need for a jury.
Take rape. There may be physical evidence such as semen and bruising to prove that intercourse did take place. The accused is admitting he had intercourse. He says it was consensual and she 'liked it rough', she says it was rape.
In cases of assault, the victim has a broken jaw. The accused admits he punched him but claims he was hit first and then the victim came at him with a knife - the accused claims self defence. A knife was found but no fingerprints to prove anything.
In fraud cases the accused admits that he did cash cheques to the value of x amount, but states the money was a gift. The victim states he was swindled out of the money.
Same with theft. Was the item stolen or a gift, or did the accused buy the item in good faith?
If 100% evidence was needed very few cases would get to court and there would be no need for a jury.
A majority verdict can only be returned when the judge thinks it appropriate and the jury say, when asked, that they haven't yet got a unanimous verdict. And that can only be done after a minimum of two hours deliberation, to which is added the time that it takes for all the jury to get back to the jury room, taken to be ten minutes.
The majority is, of 12 jurors, 10 agreeing. If there are only 11 jurors, one having been discharged, it is also 10 agreeing. If there are only 10 jurors remaining, it is 9 agreeing.
The time for the direction depends very much on the nature, the length, and the complexity of the case, or any of those factors.
The majority is, of 12 jurors, 10 agreeing. If there are only 11 jurors, one having been discharged, it is also 10 agreeing. If there are only 10 jurors remaining, it is 9 agreeing.
The time for the direction depends very much on the nature, the length, and the complexity of the case, or any of those factors.
There is no record on my my sister but yes lots of unfounded allegations against her from this neighbor to police and housing. But my sister has also put complaints in the past against her neighbor too and the neighbors daughter did received a caution. But this women has said these untrue things about my sister. And now she has to face court. she will of course plead not guilty but still find it hard that its one word against the other. I always thought there had to be some proof for a charge
The offences you refer to are purely summary, that is they can only be tried in the magistrates' court, but the same principles apply. The lay magistrates (or magistrate if it is a professional magistrate) can find a person guilty, whatever witnesses they have, when there is only one witness for the prosecution, such as one neighbour.
The court will hear both sides. Your sister and the neighbour will both go to court and give their evidence under oath. They will be asked questions about it by the magistrates, the magistrates will listen to both people and make a decision from what they have heard and the answers to their questions.
I will just add that telling a lie under oath is VERY serious , it is contempt of court and may well be a prison sentence.
In reality the neighbour may well refuse to come to court and repeat the allegations under oath , in which case your sister will win the case.
I will just add that telling a lie under oath is VERY serious , it is contempt of court and may well be a prison sentence.
In reality the neighbour may well refuse to come to court and repeat the allegations under oath , in which case your sister will win the case.
oh Eddie - you're so Fuuuuuuunnny !
I would alter the gt Freddie post (no 2) to:
Juries are much better than magistrates at telling liars - who are not really much good.
and dont lie under oath - they can tell.
It is very obvious having seen it done
One was an inquest where a 12y o child told the coroner under oath that he hadnt been looking when another 12 y old was flattened by a car.
The coroner burst out laughing and said o really is that your evidence ?
The witnesses usually wont lie: instead they fail to turn up.
I dont like this he said she said type of case
but I think we are stuck with them.
and as for the Police hahahaha
Did any of the other twenty uniforms in the Ian Tomlinson case say one of our lot just hit this old fella ?
well yes they did apparently - three
but nothing was done until the video 'turned up'
I would alter the gt Freddie post (no 2) to:
Juries are much better than magistrates at telling liars - who are not really much good.
and dont lie under oath - they can tell.
It is very obvious having seen it done
One was an inquest where a 12y o child told the coroner under oath that he hadnt been looking when another 12 y old was flattened by a car.
The coroner burst out laughing and said o really is that your evidence ?
The witnesses usually wont lie: instead they fail to turn up.
I dont like this he said she said type of case
but I think we are stuck with them.
and as for the Police hahahaha
Did any of the other twenty uniforms in the Ian Tomlinson case say one of our lot just hit this old fella ?
well yes they did apparently - three
but nothing was done until the video 'turned up'
.
In drummer Rigby's case - the police turn up and take stock of the situation and prioritise - instantly:
you will hear one should 'Get them out of here: they all have videos'
rather than - get their names they all have video evidence we need !
Ho hum - we get the court system we pay for and deserve.
In drummer Rigby's case - the police turn up and take stock of the situation and prioritise - instantly:
you will hear one should 'Get them out of here: they all have videos'
rather than - get their names they all have video evidence we need !
Ho hum - we get the court system we pay for and deserve.
Just a couple of points of clarification:
"In civil court the standard is the 'balance of probabilities', so a private prosecution can succeed but the same case be tried in a criminal court and fail. "
A private prosecution for a criminal offence is not a civil matter. It is a criminal trial and the jury (or Magistrates) must be sure "beyond resonable doubt". The fact that it is an individual who brought the case to court rather than the CPS does not turn the trial into a civil matter.
Lying in court under oath is perjury, Eddie, not contempt of court.
"In civil court the standard is the 'balance of probabilities', so a private prosecution can succeed but the same case be tried in a criminal court and fail. "
A private prosecution for a criminal offence is not a civil matter. It is a criminal trial and the jury (or Magistrates) must be sure "beyond resonable doubt". The fact that it is an individual who brought the case to court rather than the CPS does not turn the trial into a civil matter.
Lying in court under oath is perjury, Eddie, not contempt of court.
What I mean by lying to police is she will say one thing to the police and another to the housing to the point of being ridiculous. Can that be used in court as to paint a picture of the neighbor? if my sister solicitor can get all records of allegations against her from the police and housing and do a side by side comparison of it and find inconsistencies. Will this help? Also to add the rest of the neighbors want to character statements for my sister. as this women has caused problems for the previous tenants. And this previous tenant wants to do a statement on the similar allegations too? Many thanks for any help
What happens is that any previous inconsistent statement in a document is put to the witness by putting the paper in their hand and asking them about it. If the previous inconsistent statement was spoken, it depends on whether evidence of it has been given in the trial. If it has, then you simply point out what has been said, and ask about it, if not you put the inconsistent statement, identifying the circumstances of it and ask about it. You will probably be in her position to call evidence of it later.
Prosecutions for perjury are rare. After all, most defendants who give evidence and who are convicted have lied on oath, and the same forbearance is shown to their witnesses, with no prosecution for perjury following.
Prosecutions for perjury are rare. After all, most defendants who give evidence and who are convicted have lied on oath, and the same forbearance is shown to their witnesses, with no prosecution for perjury following.
Yes we are in the UK. This scares me so much. That people have the power to just lie and without any proof or evidence just destroy peoples lives. My sister has never been to court. This neighbor has studied the law and has been relentless in her allegations. My Sister was under the illusion that there had to be some kind of proof or at least one witness but now see that is not the case. Any advice is well needed in this very stressful situation.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.