Interesting Choice of Words!

  morddwyd 09:15 28 Jan 2017
Locked

A local politician will not face charges because thee is "insufficient" evidence.

Am I being overly cyclical in noting that they did not say "no" evidence?

  Govan1x 09:27 28 Jan 2017

Maybe word of mouth from one person to another with no one else hearing what was said.

I suppose he may have said it but as no one else heard it apart from who he said it to, there is no one to back up what was said.

So insufficient" evidence would probably be the rule of law.

That would be my understanding of it.

  x123 10:57 28 Jan 2017

The wording is usually

" insufficient evidence to proceed "

That gives the police / cps time to revisit the original accusation, if any further evidence comes to light.

If there was no evidence, then it would say

" No charges to face "

  bremner 11:18 28 Jan 2017

Look at the case of Lord Bramell

He was investigated after the allegations made by "Nick". The police told him that there was insufficient evidence to bring charges.

They could not say their was no evidence because of Nick's allegation i.e. evidence, something Lord Bramell and many others found unacceptable. they felt that the police should have said there was no evidence because nothing was found to substantiate the allegation and he should therefore be totally exonerated.

So in the case of your local politician you are being over cynical.

  Burn-it 13:50 28 Jan 2017

The point is that they have to be sure that they have sufficient PROOF that a jury will prosecute because you can only be charged once with the same crime. They are waiting!!

  wee eddie 14:30 28 Jan 2017

The use of words is critical. My mind was opened to this when someone explained to me what a "Terminological Inexactitude" was.

Even with something as simple as this, the choice of words used can tell us an important tale

  Pine Man 14:47 28 Jan 2017

Burn-it

The law of double jeopardy is what you are referring to, which meant no one could be tried twice for the same crime but that legal principle was abolished in 2005.

  morddwyd 18:40 28 Jan 2017

" insufficient evidence to proceed "

This case is in Scotland, so it's the Procurator Fiscal, not the CPS.

The wording up here is "no case to answer" or "insufficient evidence".

The politician was first detained by police nearly 4 months ago, enquiring into fund-raising fraud.

The actual statement was "there is insufficient evidence to support each of the allegations, ".

I guess I am just overly cynical!

  Teabag. 18:56 28 Jan 2017

Well it would have been more informative in your opening question to say the case related to Scotland.

  Teabag. 18:58 28 Jan 2017

It would also have been clearer if you posted a link to the so called allegation.

  Forum Editor 22:42 28 Jan 2017

Insufficient evidence means just that - there is not enough evidence to warrant a prosecution that has a chance of succeeding.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Samsung Galaxy Book 2: Release date, price and specs

This First Man soundtrack vinyl cover art is exquisitely composed

How to watch Apple’s October 2018 iPad launch

Meilleurs VPN (2018)