RIP Roadmap of Schedule 1

[David Swarbrick]

In message <Pine.GSO.3.95-960729.1000302074121.7874L-
100000@finan.ncl.ac.uk>, Quentin Campbell <Q.G.Campbell@newcastle.ac.uk>
wrote:
>Donald
>
>I quote below something I once heard during a talk on an aspect of
>forensic computing as to why you need more than just the word of a
>Policeman (or other LEA official come to that) in such matters. It seems
>relevant to your concerns over the RIP Bill as well.
>
>  "This was precisely the sort of reason for which the Court [of Criminal
>   Appeal] had been created. There was a precedent for such a course. In
>   the celebrated case in which Mr Hemmerde had invited the Liverpool jury
>   not to convict an accused 'on the uncorroborated testimony of fourteen
>   policeman', the Court had heard evidence, by way of confession, which
>   established to the satisfaction of the Court, that the fourteen police-
>   men had been mistaken in their identification." 
>
>   [from "Hanged in Error" by Leslie Hale, Penguin Special (S196), 1961]

Many years ago, I spent two days in the Magistrates calling two entire
shifts of policeman liars. They were, and did. We had the local
'hanging' bench who had not found anyone not guilty for two years, and
were entirely supportive, indeed gung-ho about our local bobbies. My
client was convicted of assault PC, but (a world record for this court)
given a conditional discharge. They couldn't quite bring themselves to
say 'not guilty'

-- 
David Swarbrick, Solicitor 01484 722531 - david@swarb.freeuk.com 
http://www.swarb.co.uk law-index of 10,600+ uk case summaries & uk.legalFQA
The Law Society regulates our investment business. IP/IT Law and Contracts.