Well, it's been very busy. I've hardly had time to answer all the email requests from the sisters for Nos's phone number. It appears he made quite an impression on them and kalpal has said she'll burn her hangman's rope if he pays just one more visit. I suppose it's the fact that spring is arriving, cowpats are drying out, the commercial cleaners have moved in at the council's request and everything just looks hunky dory. The reprobates want to sue someone but they don't know who, things are confused as to who is the hunter and who is the hunted, stalkers have been given a wake up call, the hate-sites are losing confidence and infighting. It's all so much fun I could kiss a rabbit's foot. It's like one big mad hatter's tea party on the hate-sites and here's a little present for them from the Law Commission about the meaning of not guilty and innocence:
"Either the case is proved and the verdict is that of guilty, or the case is not proved and the verdict is that of not guilty. Issues of innocence, suspicion, and likelihood of guilt are not distinguished in the verdict and in a very practical sense the accused is either convicted or cleared. This makes acquittal equivalent, in practical effect, to a finding of innocence, as the Supreme Court of Canada noted in Grdic v R (1985) 19 DLR (4th) 385, 389–390:
. . . as a matter of fundamental policy in the administration of the criminal law it must be accepted by the Crown in a subsequent criminal proceeding that an acquittal is the equivalent to a finding of innocence . . . ..
To reach behind the acquittal, to qualify it, is, in effect, to introduce the verdict of “not proven”, which is not, has never been and should not be a part of our law. "
From the Law Commission http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/UploadFiles/Publications/Publication_48_94_R49.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment