[Doofy]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...elievable.html

A yob accused of robbing a driving instructor walked free from court - after a judge ruled that the victim was too believable as a witness.

Judge Jamie Tabor praised Denise Dawson as 'honest, utterly decent and brave' when she identified a man as her alleged attacker and gave evidence against him.

But moments later he halted the trial and ordered a not guilty verdict on Liam Perks, 20.

The judge said Mrs Dawson's good character and compelling evidence could sway the jury, even though she had had only a fleeting glimpse of her attacker.

He said: 'Denise Dawson was a particularly impressive witness because she showed courage, clarity of thought and was undoubtedly honest. The jury may lend more weight to her evidence than the facts allow. You cannot be sure she got it right.'

The judge said that her evidence was not enough for a conviction.

Mrs Dawson, who was offered a £250 bravery award by the judge, said the robbery had left her so terrified she had considered giving up her job.

The instructor was attacked in Southmead, Bristol, in December 2007. She told Bristol Crown Court a gang of yobs surrounded her car and one smashed a window and stole her laptop.

She chased him unsuccessfully, then returned to her car to find another youth rifling through the glove box.

Mrs Dawson, from Westbury-on-Trym, Bristol, said she grabbed him and was face-to-face with him for about three seconds before another member of the gang punched her twice, breaking her nose.

Police later organised an identity parade and she picked out Perks. But he denied her claim.

The court heard that Perks, of Henbury, Bristol, had admitted a separate charge of conspiracy to burgle, for his involvement in a gang which stole motorcycles and prestige cars. He is awaiting sentence for that offence.

[voodoo]

I assume you have appeals court in the UK. This is something very ripe for appeal, I should think.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

I assume you have appeals court in the UK. This is something very ripe for appeal, I should think.

Don't quote me on this, but I think appeals courts are only to protest your innocence if you've been found guilty of something - I don't think a victim can appeal to have the case tried again. That'd be double jeopardy or something (wouldn't it?). :shrug:

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Don't quote me on this, but I think appeals courts are only to protest your innocence if you've been found guilty of something - I don't think a victim can appeal to have the case tried again. That'd be double jeopardy or something (wouldn't it?). :shrug:

Well, I hope this is possible to appeal. It doesn't seem right or fair that witnesses can be dismissed because they are too credible.

Might was well dismiss fingerprints and DNA evidence on the same grounds. I hear these are damn incriminating!

[ctt1wbw]

So can the courts dismiss police officers based on their credibility? What about other professionals, like said DNA scientists and phychologists? Dismissed! So I guess a crack dealer is a better witness because he is LESS credible?

[SpaceMonkey]

I thought in cases like this the judge just reminded the jury of the pertinent legal issues and told them not to give undue weight to the witnesses' testimony, but then let them decide.

But then I learned everything I know about legal procedure from Law & Order.

[zro]

What a... wait, what the hell is a "yob"??

Do you vote for judges over there? His might be a name to remember if so.