PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Scotish implications of Attorney General guidelines
cjm99
post Thu, 22 Apr 2004 - 09:55
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,109
Joined: 16 Dec 2003
From: Manchester
Member No.: 675



Have a look at these, There are some references to Scottish law in regard to sec 172. Very interesting.

http://www.lslo.gov.uk/guidelines.htm




Chris


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 2)
Advertisement
post Thu, 22 Apr 2004 - 09:55
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
jeffreyarcher
post Thu, 22 Apr 2004 - 21:31
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,639
Joined: 5 Jul 2003
Member No.: 134



QUOTE (cjm99)
Have a look at these, There are some references to Scottish law in regard to sec 172. Very interesting.
http://www.lslo.gov.uk/guidelines.htm

Hi Chris,
I assume that you mean, from http://www.lslo.gov.uk/pdf/prosecutors.pdf
If you do, you should note that that document precedes Stott v Brown, Privy Council, 5/12/00 and numerous subsequent English High Court rulings which have confirmed that it applies in England, and to speeding charges.

However,
QUOTE (Attorney General Guidelines)
The requirement under Scots law for corroboration of material evidence led by the prosecution has no parallel in the law of England and Wales.

That is very interesting. where is the corroboration in a S172 form? Presumably that is the relevence of "in Scotland, sufficient evidence" in Section 12 when referring to the admissibility of a S172 form 'purporting to be signed by the accused'.
So, if it is held that an unsigned form is not such a form, does that mean that they can't get it in as a confession because there isn't any corroboration?

Chris, could you edit the thread title to bring it to the attention of those north of the border? E.g. S172 in Scotland.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
r11co
post Wed, 28 Apr 2004 - 17:30
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 65
Joined: 8 Jan 2004
Member No.: 751



Corroboration of evidence where unmanned speed detection, requiring 'after-the-fact' witness statements, has been employed has always puzzled me up here in Sotland.

I was always under the impression that all Scottish roadside patrols have to be manned by two officers precisely for the purpose of corroboration - not of the speeding evidence as the calibrated equipment and the operator corroborate each other, but to corroborate the witness statement of the driver pulled over, and certainly 100% of patrols I have seen in operation involve 2 or more officers.

icon_question.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Wednesday, 8th December 2021 - 22:57
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.