Punter08 (29-09-19)
Punter08 (29-09-19)
As I already explained in a previous comment, criminal law requires proof beyond all reasonable doubt. The burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt, not on the accused to prove innocence. Therefore, they need to show (a) money changed hands, and (b) sexual contact happened. If they can't show that, then you're assumed innocent.
If they give a verdict and move on, the verdict will be one of innocence.In District Court they just give a verdict and move on. In theory you are right , but not in practice
Punter08 (29-09-19)
Is it fair to say it is probably safer to visit an escort in a hotel now, as opposed to some random flat?
Also could consider bringing two phones, if you have one. One you use to confirm the call, the other one there are a decoy?
Wonder is one safer with mature escorts.
Punter08 (29-09-19)
Mr Sweet Guy (29-09-19)
Southpaw (30-09-19)
Actually, I did.
If that happens, then you appeal against the sentence, which you will easily win. Then the judge looks like an idiot for making the wrong decision in the first place.In theory have to 'show' what you say. You are 100% correct but in practice the judge just listens to the evidence and if they think you are guilt they convict. You repeating the theory doesn't change the reality. A judge does not have to produce a detailed document describing how they came to their conclusion and that it is beyond reasonable doubt.