R v (1) GRAHAM WESTGARTH SMITH (2) MIKE JAYSON (2002)

[Donald ramsbottom]

>
>Yes, it's called "precedent", it's deliberate and it's a good thing.

In the main it is, but precedent can be wrong and usually is with effluxion
of time when after "interpretation" the original precedent is meaningless.
The point is that a none techy judge has made a fairly arbitary and
technically wrong assumption for the basis of a conviction on a current
cause celebre crime. This is not a good use of precedent.

Owen,

Sorry I had a bad day at the office yesterday :)  your post triggered my
outburst, but it should not have done, there was nothing in it to warrant
such a rantling,   I apologise to you and the list.

As a general note, historically the worse the crime the more jurisprudence
there is on the subject, and one should be careful to ensure principles and
subject matter are properly seperated.



Donald Ramsbottom BA LLb (Hons) PGdip
Ramsbottom & Co Solicitors
Internet and Global Encryption Law Specialists & General UK  Law Matters
5 Seagrove Avenue Hayling Island Hampshire UK
Tel (44) 023 9246 5931 Fax (44) 023 9246 8349
Service by Fax or Email NOT accepted