SkyDive6...
You're misrepresenting the situation with your post#31, as it has definitely NOT been proved that Mr Andrews made an offensive gesture to Mr Rasheed (the student) as alleged by Mr Rasheed, as follows:
But eight months on, he appeared in a Dubai court and protested his innocence only for the trial to be adjourned until April 4 after Mr Rasheed failed to appear to give evidence.
Mr Andrews has another court date scheduled for next Sunday.
According to a court source: 'Mr Andrews says the offensive gesture never happened. The Iraqi has never appeared in court to testify against him and there are no witnesses.
'Mr Andrews has told the court there is no evidence he did anything wrong and that it is Mr Rasheed's word against his.
Source: Mail Online (see
British man faces six months in Dubai jail for making offensive gesture at Iraqi student | Mail Online)
Further, from your quoted source (if you bothered to read that whole article):
Although the proceedings are civil, the court must apply a heightened civil standard of proof. This standard is virtually indistinguishable from the criminal standard.[12] The applicant must satisfy the court "so that it is sure" that the defendant has acted in an anti-social manner. The test for the court to be "satisfied so that it is sure" is the same direction that a judge gives to a jury in a criminal case heard in the Crown Court. This is also known as satisfying the court "beyond reasonable doubt": R v Kritz [1950] 1 KB 82, approved by the Privy Council in Walters v R [1969] 2 AC 26 at 30.[citation needed]
As a matter of law, the burden of proof remains on the applicant and the standard is, effectively, the criminal standard. A court may not order an anti-social behaviour order unless it is satisfied so that it is sure that the defendant has committed one or more of the anti-social acts alleged.
Therefore, the burden of proof for the alleged ASBO against Mr Andrews remains (under a normal judicial system) with the Mr Rasheed (the student). Since Mr Rasheed (the applicant) has failed to appear in court to give evidence, the magistrate or whatever should have dismissed the charges against Mr Andrews.
Justice delayed is justice denied SkyDive6, even under the so-called legal system that you seem so intent on defending on the basis of what clearly appears to be a presumption of 'guilty until proved innocent'.
SkyDive6, I've also been on the receiving end of the so-called legal system of another neighbouring Gulf State, and fortunately was able to prove my innocence against three trumped-up complaints from locals, but it wasn't fun on the way through, believe me!
ManaAdaSystem said:
Listen, this is not home. Different rules and regs apply. If you don't realize this, then you are clearly in the wrong place.
No **** Sherlock.........do you want to try to tell that to all the Islamic immigrants living in UK, France, Australia, wherever?
