Bruno Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Obviously more to this story for the courts to impose what they have, probably a bit like known thieves where unless they are caught with the goods in the hand can't be prosecuted. So maybe this defendant got away on a technicality but with the nature of the offence has had this ruling put on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quik Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Obviously more to this story for the courts to impose what they have, probably a bit like known thieves where unless they are caught with the goods in the hand can't be prosecuted. So maybe this defendant got away on a technicality but with the nature of the offence has had this ruling put on him. Which is fine if we want to dispense with trials and just put anyone we think is probably a bit dodgy under house arrest. But it would be a rather large departure from how we normally do things here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Which is fine if we want to dispense with trials and just put anyone we think is probably a bit dodgy under house arrest. But it would be a rather large departure from how we normally do things here. With the nature of the offence it's probably a good decision. As I said there must be a lot more to the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dales Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 So what about women who say they have been raped then it is PROVED they haven't can they be given the same punishment. The no smoke without fire saying is one of the most stupid saying I have ever heard. I totally agree with you. I know of a female (a few years ago albeit) who accused a man of raping her only to say later (when she was told the case was going to court) that she had made the claim up because her boyfriend found out that she had slept with someone else and she didn't want to admit to cheating on him. I don't think the guy she accused has ever properly recovered from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quik Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 With the nature of the offence it's probably a good decision. As I said there must be a lot more to the story. The only 'offence' we know about is a rape hes not been convicted of twice. Would you be happy for a CC to label you guilty if something having had two aquitals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 We don't know if the man has been convicted of similar offences in the past only that he has not been convicted twice . If I was a betting person , given the age of the man, I would put money on that he has served considerable time in prison after being convicted of rape in the past . Clearly the authorities believe he is guilty regardless of the court's verdict . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 We don't know if the man has been convicted of similar offences in the past only that he has not been convicted twice . If I was a betting person , given the age of the man, I would put money on that he has served considerable time in prison after being convicted of rape in the past . Clearly the authorities believe he is guilty regardless of the court's verdict . That's not how it works is it. They might believe that privately, but if they do anything that suggests publicly it then he can sue for slander or libel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 That's not how it works is it. They might believe that privately, but if they do anything that suggests publicly it then he can sue for slander or libel. The man's name has not be revealed . The Court's 'sexual risk order ' suggests the authorities believe he is guilty . My guess the person in question is not going to sue anyone and more than likely thinks he's lucky to be still walking the streets . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whiteowl Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Can see this getting challenged in the European Court, to me this breaks article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights - the right to privacy ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoned Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 No it's shocking. Further more, unless there's an alarm on his winkle and he's not very discrete how will the old bill know? If he's really a danger - name him. If I was in shoes and totally innocent Id seriously consider going to the papers anyway. I agree. If hes a danger name him so others can be safe. Otherwise leave him alone to get on with his life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now