Guilty until proven innocent?

United Kingdom
December 19, 2009 4:55pm CST
I am struggling to understand the decisions of the Criminal Prosecutions Service (CPS). I read today that they chose NOT to even attempt to try a taxi driver who caused serious injuries to two passengers because there was "no evidence" but I am being taken to court over an alleged incident when the CPS have admitted there is no evidence and have, apparently, not even attempted to confirm that I couldn't have been where the incident was said to have occurred. I am being take to court because I don't know why someone gave my details. That someone being, well, I haven't worked that out, it could be a woman or two women or a woman and her husband. I have been given a number of different stories. Apparently, no one else has noticed any indescrepencies. So, basically, because they have no evidence that something did happen, I am being asked to try and prove that it didn't. Could anyone make sense of this? Are the police/CPS, etc. required to find evidence? Does any defendant have an obligation to prove that they didn't do something or weren't in a certain place when no one has any evidence to the contrary?
2 people like this
4 responses
@p1kef1sh (45638)
20 Dec 09
In this country you are innocent until proven guilty Pumpkin. Therefore the onus on proving guilt is on the prosecution and not the defence. They should have to prove that you were there "beyond reasonable doubt". On the other hand, you need to demonstrate as well as you can that you were nowhere near the alleged scene.
2 people like this
• United Kingdom
20 Dec 09
As I mentioned to someone previously, I have given all the information I possibly can to prove that I was not there. The police appear to have ignored this and are basing the case entirely on hearsay from "witnesses" who have given false statements. Obviously the police don't realise they're false but had they actually read them, they might notice that they don't make sense. And, if they bothered asking someone who wasn't known to those "witnesses", they'd realise that no one else is aware of any incident. I don't understand why it's been taken up in the first place.
1 person likes this
@p1kef1sh (45638)
20 Dec 09
I do not understand this case at all Pumpkin. If I understand correctly you are charged with leaving the scene of an accident that you allegedly caused. Your assertion is that you weren't there at that time. The Police must produce evidence as to why they think that you were there. They will produce witness statements to the effect that you were seen. You will have to demonstrate evidence that a. you were somewhere else and b. so was your car. The Police may well only produce the witness report that best serves their case. If so you might ask if they received any other witness reports. Have you seen these reports? When were they collected and do they corroborate the prosecutions assertions about you. Also, whilst you cannot afford a lawyer have you consulted the Citizens Advice Bureau in Atherstone who appear to be the closest one to you that can provide legal advice. I know that you don't rate the CAB, but in the absence of anything else they may be your best help. Finally, just how much would a lawyer cost. If you win then his fee might well be recovered from the other side. Have you tried phoning one and asking? They may well give you some free advice over the phone anyway.
2 people like this
@p1kef1sh (45638)
24 Jun 11
Thank you for the BR. Your's was a most peculiar case and I am sorry that it ended in a bad judgement for you.
1 person likes this
@djbtol (5497)
• United States
20 Dec 09
I think the authorities make a lot of case by calls due to many factors. They rely on the fact that most people will not try to challenge them, and they mess with people's lives in a crude manner. Sorry that you are having to deal with them.
2 people like this
• United Kingdom
20 Dec 09
I think you're right there. The court were surprised when I pleaded not guilty because they hadn't had any information regarding the case before asking me to attend. Even though it was clearly stated to them that there was no evidence, I was still asked to go back because I didn't know why their "witness" had picked me out. That's the basis of their case.
@happy6162 (3009)
• United States
20 Dec 09
If you do not have a lawyer than you should get one and tell the lawyer about the case. The lawyer will go to court with you and it will be his job to either get the case thrown out or prove you are innocent of the crime.
1 person likes this
• United Kingdom
20 Dec 09
As I said to someone earlier, there is no way I can afford a lawyer. I don't know if this might go against me as obviously a lawyer knows more about the laws than I do. However, my family and I have been doing a lot of research and have reached the conclusion that the case shouldn't have gone to court in the first place according to law (and common sense!) and that it's now a case of harassment by the police, etc. all because they didn't check any facts in the first place. I still don't understand why they never so much as checked the times I would have been where I said I was.
@Hatley (164237)
• Garden Grove, California
19 Dec 09
pump kinjam well I am in the US and its innocent until proven' guilty here. but if I were you I would get myself a good lawyer who knows just how to prove you were not guilty of whatever they claim you are guilty of. they should be required to find evidence but meantime just get yourself a great lawyer and get it over and done with[/em]
1 person likes this
• United Kingdom
19 Dec 09
That's easier said than done. As I'm not entitled to Legal Aid, I can't afford a lawyer at all, let alone a good one! I think if I had one, the case would have been thrown out. I'm suspicious as to whether they think they can get away with this because they know I don't have a lawyer. As I just said to "Lambs" I have, as far as I'm concerned, given all I can possibly give to prove that I couldn't have been where this was meant to have happened.