Show Posts - Pinkie Pie

Quote from: NewJudge on 23 Sep, 2024 15:29A possible explanation for a seemingly late prosecution is that the police may have issued a second s172 request (for whatever reason). If they have, the ruling in the Scottish case, which I mentioned in post #30, may come into play. It depends very much why the second s172 request was issued.Unfortunately the full transcript of that ruling seems to have disappeared from the Scottish Courts' "Opinions" list. I do know the case was Procurator Fiscal, Glasgow v. William Gordon Jackson [2010] HCJAC 96 because I found it mentioned here:http://www.euanadowadvocate.co.uk/item/procurator-fiscal-glasgow-v-william-gordon-jackson-2010-hcjac-96.htmlIt is available on BAILII at https://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotHC/2010/2010HCJAC96.html

In order to get the evidence excluded under section 78 of PACE, you would have to show that "having regard to all the circumstances, including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it".That is a very high bar to meet indeed.The courts in this country are not like those in America (or in American films and TV programmes), where cases are dropped on 'technicalities' and other procedural issues. They are generally pragmatic and unlikely to exclude evidence, even if there was arguably some misconduct in its gathering, if it is relevant to a case. Criminal proceedings have to be conducted in accordance with the 'overriding objective', which includes "acquitting the innocent and convicting the guilty", rather than strict adherence to procedural requirements, provided the proceedings are still fair.And that's assuming the cyclist did anything wrong by filming you in your car, which I'm not convinced is the case.