Uno Hoo!
in response to:
I don't think I was saying precisely what you were saying.
Driver Notification forms for Mark! 5091In reality an impossible aim because the only people who truly know whether the offence has been committed, is the person who committed it and any witnesses who...
The courts will not convict an alleged burglar merely on suspicion. Either some hard evidence (proof) will have to be produced (in which case a confession or self-incriminating statement is irrelevant), or there will have to be a confession (usually gained via questioning under caution). The mere fact that an offence has been committed is not enough for a conviction.
But all of this legal protection of those suspected of fairly serious crime is non-existent where the suspected offence is "driving past a speed camera at a speed that local councillors don't like". Suspects get no protection - and have no high-powered single-issue bodies standing up for them. They are on their own in a system that is ploaded against them, whereas the system is loaded against the victims of real crime and in favour of those who commit it.
Truly - and this is what others have been trying to say to you - in such a situation, the law is topsy-turvy and is being used to heap insult upon injury.
The fact that this point is oft-repeated does not make it invalid - quite the contrary.
