This week has just witnessed the conviction of someone for sexual offences. I understand that some of the victims were under the age of sexual consent.
I know that this is not the first instance and I am not privy to the details of this particular case but, I believe that the defendant was convicted with the assistance of uncorroborated evidence. If this is true, then this is not right.
In this very serious matter where a persons reputation and career is in danger of extinction accompanied by a lengthy visit to jail, it surely cannot be right that with potentially large sums of cash on offer for a lurid story plus the prospect of legal compensation that, it takes just one person to offer evidence that leads to conviction.
No corroboration in the way of forensic, circumstantial or eye witness evidence seems to be necessary – or, have I got it wrong?
Does anyone have any other information ?
Sign In
May 3, 2014 at 7:11 pm