|
Originally Posted by OngBonga
An inaccurate account doesn't imply a lie, it implies an error of judgement, and it's reasonable that a cop can make an error of judgement...
You are now better than about half of all defense attorneys. This is a much harder argument to fight against for the State, and much easier to make for the Defense. Nevertheless, many defense attorneys will persist with the "cop is lying" argument instead of the "cop is mistaken" one.
If he's saying "I was doing 70 and the accused was overtaking me on the outside lane by approximately 20mph", that isn't admissable evidence, it's vague. (well, theres foundation issues. Hows he know it was 20? Is he just guessing? Thats why this would get blocked} If he then goes on to say "when I caught up with him he was still doing 95mph", well that's better, because it's very difficult for the cop to be mistaken in this regard. But even still, without hard proof, a skilled lawyer should have no problem rendering this inadmissable.
Without doing any legal research, I dont see why it wouldnt come in. The 3 rules of evidence are Relevance, Reliability, and Right. Its certainly relevant, driving at your own speed of 95 and seeing someone else going the same speed is reliable, and it wouldnt be wrong to see it. In America, issues like "well, how do we know he saw it correctly?" are questions of weight that go to the fact-finder. It still comes in tho.
Of course, without hard evidence, a cop is very likely to just give the driver a ticking off, knowing that it's going to be very difficult to get a successful prosecution based on his word alone. He might even search the car in the hope of finding drugs or purely to inconvenience the driver. But he's a fool if he takes a driver to court hoping that his word alone will take him down.
Maybe your law works differently to ours. Or maybe I'm wrong and the word of a policeman is considered fact in a UK court. Or maybe it's you guys talking shit and not me. I doubt that last one though.
I know nothing of UK laws, people, or anything. In US, jurors hate defendants and see them as guilty. They also, imo, dont often take the "reasonable doubt" standard seriously. Is that different in the UK? Maybe. I know you guys have cameras everywhere so maybe its more common to need such proof. Hard evidence isnt a requirement here though, its just a bonus.
|