Laws shall protect people as a whole.
But do u think the following judgement is reasonable.
A car jumped the red light.Owner refused to give details
of the driver,claiming:
insisted the sections under the ordinance were against the Bill
of Rights in that they deprived him of his rights to silence and
against incriminating himself.
QUOTE:''Under the ordinance, car owners are
required to identify to police the person driving his or her car at
the time of an alleged offense. Failure to do so may result in a
maximum fine of xxx and six months in jail.
The draconian nature of the power under section 63 of the xxxx,
coupled with the lack of any evidence or material whatsoever to
justify the continued existence of that power, mean that the
undoubted violation of the defendants right to silence and his
privilege against self- incrimination must result in a trial that
cannot, in any sense whatsoever, be said to be fair, Thomas said in
his written judgment. Accordingly, I hold that the power in section
63 is xxxx inconsistent. The section has ceased to have any
effect.
Accordingly, I find the defendant not guilty of the offense in
the summons and acquit him.''
1.Wait wait.Dunt bother to find where it happened.
I found many forumers here not based on substances of the
discussions,
but based who discussed the issue,English standard and where did
the issue happen.
Many tend to defend if it happened in Oz etc.
2.Questions:Is it reasonable for the judgement?