It seems a strange argument that because a person cannot or more importantly "claims" they cannot remember anything we can not put them on trial.
It seems to lead to an open door on everyone claiming amnesia!
For example a lorry driver who wipes out yet another family on the A34 in Oxfordshire (which is becoming a regular occurrence now) simply claims amnesia of the event and we all say that fine you can go, no trial is necessary as we cannot try them.
What happens if he claims amnesia - but actually there is cab-cam (which in all the recent fatals there has been) which records him piling into the rear of the said family of 4? Does the availability of other evidence now render the alleged amnesia in this example irrelevant and we can put the person on trial.
It also leads to the strange situation where a person can escape justice by virtue of his brain makeup being susceptible to suffering from amnesia while say another person who does is not susceptible in such a way can be put on trial.
You may recall that Ernest Saunders managed to pull something similar off in his finance related trial...and succeeded in being released early as part of the appeal process due to supposedly having Alzheimers whereupon post release a miraculous recovery ensured.
Last edited by dsc810; 21st Mar 2017 at 22:13.