cartoon

















IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.





Lost Password?
No account yet? Register
King of Hits
Home arrow Forums
Messageboards
Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register.    Lost Password?
Your Views Messageboard
Post a new message in "Your Views Messageboard"
Name:
Subject:
Boardcode:
B I U S Sub Sup Size Color Spoiler Hide ul ol li left center right Quote Code Img URL  
Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons
B) :( :) :laugh:
:cheer: ;) :P :angry:
:unsure: :ohmy: :huh: :dry:
:lol: :silly: :blink: :blush:
:kiss: :woohoo: :side: :S
More Smilies
 Enter code here   

Topic History of: Calling lawyers!
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
Author Message
JK2006 The Lawrence review highlights a nasty trick often used by prosecution - lack of disclosure to the defence. This was a major gimmick used years ago, usually dealt with by lazy judges with a slapped wrist (often accompanied by a wink). I thought this was a serious offence which, in extreme, could lead to the scrapping of a trial. Can a lawyer explain the current situation?

Just to explain… how can you mount a defence (sometimes requiring heavy work) if you don't know who is the claimed victim or when the crime was meant to have happened?