2 Witnesses - First Hand Knowledge

[Ben_Deevoy]

Just been watching something on YT where it states any common law offense requires 2 witnesses with first hand knowledge of the crime (under common law).
Surely this isnt true ? As anyone could murder somebody without witness & get away with it ?

Just wondered if anyone had done any study on this ?

Thanks
Ben

[Thomas]

Just been watching something on YT where it states any common law offense requires 2 witnesses with first hand knowledge of the crime (under common law).
Surely this isnt true ? As anyone could murder somebody without witness & get away with it ?

Just wondered if anyone had done any study on this ?

Thanks
Ben

Innocent until proven guilty and it needs 2 witnesses to stand a chance of any guilt to be assessed and not waste time. Conversely any one could be framed more easily or on the say so of someone with a small vendetta and squabble.

With more serious cases, more evidence would also be assessed, but still applies. Years ago when the unlawful legislation wasn't as bad, people were allowed to defend themselves (rather than the police defend you "after you have been murdered;" that's how daft we have become on the whole.)


Much of that 2 witnesses has also been done away with, on say, the victimless so-called crimes (which are not crimes) because they (police and small courts etc) make allot of money from it. And they have convinced the public the fines are for prevention and deterrents, but really they have made the prevention and deterrents of no effect. So they can then try and justify theft with fines as prevention, when there is no injured party (so no crime) and they cannot cite the law that says they have a right to steal. But never the less most people wrongly think its a just fine for prevention, when really its just plain robbery.

[Ben_Deevoy]

Cheers for your answer Thomas

Its amazing what you can learn about in such a short period of time....

It seems a little crazy to me that 2 witnesses are needed.... But thanks for the clarity.

And as for the self defense thing, I know how that goes; A few years ago I was caught up in a ABH charge for defending myself (got found guilty for defending myself).... they said I should have called the police..... If I had called the police it would have been too late & it would have been me in an ambulance instead of the other guy lol.

I find it ironic that the people cant use self defense, but when it comes to international foreign policy; millions of innocent people can be murdered just at the hint or suggestion of a threat.

As for victimless "crimes" - how people have put up with some of these acts & for so long is unreal.... takes some serious social conditioning.....

[legaleagle]

Hi all I thought I'd pop by and clear up some of the confusion around both burden of proof, and the law of self defence. Here goes..

Burden of proof: Although most prosecutions involve witnesses there is no need for human witnesses to any crime to prove guilt or secure a conviction. The proof can come in many ways such as CCTV, phone records and forensic evidence such as DNA or finger prints. A quick example for you to illustrate my point. Say an individual kidnaps someone with no witnesses and takes them back to his house where he kills them. As he is leaving his house he is stopped by a police constable who because the individual has fresh blood on him suspects he has committed an offence and arrests him. He then enters the house and finds the body. Now depending on your definition of a witness who has first hand knowledge of the crime this could be the only witness, there could be no witnesses as the police officer did not see the crime or every individual who is involved in the case could become your witness. Which ever view you take this scenario (though clearly made up) is enough to send the individual to court and (depending on the case) convict him.

Self Defence: The law does allow individuals to use force to defend themselves and others (in some cases massive force). The test being very broadly the 'reasonable person test' which is what would a reasonable person have done. The CPS website (http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self ... able_Force) explains it in great detail. This is however a very hard area to resolve as the case is decided way after the actual event and is often a case of one persons word against another (or one groups word against another.)
I cannot of course say what happened in your own case (unless you wanted to give more detail) but many people do get found not guilty by way of self-defence.

I hope this helps

[legaleagle]

Hi just to clarify you do not need need two witnesses to any crime (although it would depend on your definition of witness.) Murder is an easy example. If someone is seen dragging an individual into an alleyway by a police officer and by the time he get there the individual has already been killed then it is possible and very likely that a prosecution would go ahead based on the one witness statement together with the other evidence such as DNA. It would also possible as has been proven by the various (so called) cold cases to prosecute someone baed purely on DNA evidence. Which is one of the reasons that everybody who is arrested for a recordable offence has their fingerprints and DNA checked against the national database.

Also on the separate question of 'self-defence' you have a right to defend yourself, others and your property and the CPS charging standard is at http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self ... able_Force. You are judged on what a (hypothetical) reasonable person would have done under the circumstances you where under and thought you where under. The second part of that is very important as for instance if you had reason to believe the other party had a knife then you can defend your self as if he had a knife, even if he did not have one. This was evidenced in the case that happened some time ago now of a man who was shot by police who thought he had a shotgun, when in fact it was a table leg in a blanket.

I hope this helps

[umbongo82]

Just been watching something on YT where it states any common law offense requires 2 witnesses with first hand knowledge of the crime (under common law).
Surely this isnt true ? As anyone could murder somebody without witness & get away with it ?

Just wondered if anyone had done any study on this ?

Thanks
Ben

Innocent until proven guilty and it needs 2 witnesses to stand a chance of any guilt to be assessed and not waste time. Conversely any one could be framed more easily or on the say so of someone with a small vendetta and squabble.

With more serious cases, more evidence would also be assessed, but still applies. Years ago when the unlawful legislation wasn't as bad, people were allowed to defend themselves (rather than the police defend you "after you have been murdered;" that's how daft we have become on the whole.)


Much of that 2 witnesses has also been done away with, on say, the victimless so-called crimes (which are not crimes) because they (police and small courts etc) make allot of money from it. And they have convinced the public the fines are for prevention and deterrents, but really they have made the prevention and deterrents of no effect. So they can then try and justify theft with fines as prevention, when there is no injured party (so no crime) and they cannot cite the law that says they have a right to steal. But never the less most people wrongly think its a just fine for prevention, when really its just plain robbery.

Seriously, where do you get your 'information' from? I'm utterly fascinated as you either seem to make it up or I get the feeling someone has told you it, been very convincing and you've just blindly accepted it. Open your eyes and try and research for yourself, you might be surprised.