Originally Posted by
Ixion
No, it is not, though it is pretty dodgy. Consider: If you saw a man burgling a house, and flagged down a police car and said to them "The guy in that car driving away , there, just burgled this house. Stop him and arrest him." The cop (assuming he did indeed take off after the alleged burgler, and not call a taxi) would be relying on your uncorroborated word. Of course, he'd need you to give evidence in court, as would this case. The police must often proceed on the basis of eyewitness evidence.
I intended "uncorroborated complaint" to have a somewhat different meaning from "eyewitness evidence". In the latter case presumably the police could independently confirm that an offence had been committed, i.e. by contacting the householder. In Girlie's case the question of whether an actual offence has been committed is, as you say, a matter of opinion. My point is that for justice to be done a court hearing is necessary in which the complainant's and the defendant's versions will be weighed up. Without independent witnesses the chances of a prosecution succeeding must be slim (provided the defendant has a lawyer who is not totally incompetent). Yet surely some people must be frightened into paying up through ignorance of their rights or deterred from pursuing the matter because of the costs involved?
Age is too high a price to pay for maturity
Reply With Quote
)
Bookmarks