Strange court decision, sexist?
Discussion
Does this make me proud of my city or not, probably the latter.
Terrible choice of 'venue' to carry out such a spectacle. There's a darkened lane just further down the street where one could shelter behind a number of bins. Although not as romantic, my suggested location would have been distinctly less expensive in the long run.
Terrible choice of 'venue' to carry out such a spectacle. There's a darkened lane just further down the street where one could shelter behind a number of bins. Although not as romantic, my suggested location would have been distinctly less expensive in the long run.
IanMorewood said:
Man admitted it, woman denied it, prosecutors decided not to proceed against her but as he's already said he did it be gets fined.
Nice to see justice being done...With an early 'guilty' plea from the Man, the spineless / sexist prosecutors should have given the woman a bigger fine for lying.
joeg said:
A couple having sex in a doorway, both charged. Male convicted in court female not called to court.... https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp/news/local/man...
Aberdeen, it doesn't change. Love it!The Surveyor said:
With an early 'guilty' plea from the Man, the spineless / sexist prosecutors should have given the woman a bigger fine for lying.
That's not how it works, though.If somebody, anybody, denies a criminal offence, then a fine is imposed if and when a court finds them guilty in a trial. A trial is an expensive, time-consuming thing. Would it be in the public interest to hold one over something so minor?
KevinCorvetteC6 said:
Seems odd, if he has admitted it how can she be not guilty, or in this case, not even charged?
Because she may contest that it never happened and he is lying (or at least taking the line of least resistance)or maybe he thought he was shagging her, but she never realised...
TooMany2cvs said:
The Surveyor said:
With an early 'guilty' plea from the Man, the spineless / sexist prosecutors should have given the woman a bigger fine for lying.
That's not how it works, though.If somebody, anybody, denies a criminal offence, then a fine is imposed if and when a court finds them guilty in a trial. A trial is an expensive, time-consuming thing. Would it be in the public interest to hold one over something so minor?
The Surveyor said:
As far as this being in the public interest, if the offence was so minor the Man should have been let off with a warning at the most
He stuck his hand up and said "Yep, I did it." (I think it was his hand. I hope it was his hand...) He got a fine, there and then. No more needed than that.She decided to gamble that there were more important cases for the prosecution and the court to spend their time and energy on. She won. This time. But surely the most important thing is that they've probably both learned a lesson...?
The Surveyor said:
There are plenty of trials where the sentence is reduced for an early guilty plea, this totally contradicts that by suggesting you'll get off lighter if you lie. Something that certainly isn't in the public interest.
Pretty much sums it up, a truly strange decision for the court to make.It would be interesting to know what kind of legal advice the man had as logic would suggest than an early guilty plea is generally recommended but in this case turned out to be not the best advice.
What if both parties had denied the offence?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff