uk justice system mistake or what, no victim, and heresay leads to conviction?

Question

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/5368640.stm

so he was bnp...

this is now case law
1 citizen, can report another, no victim, no evidence, no proof, nothing....



stupid verdict?

no im not in the bnp
no im not racist...

dont we need evidence to convict

Answer 1

Yeah Well: You are mistaken on a number of points: If the witness who gave evidence saw what happened, she is a competent witness. It is not heresay: Heresay is where someone gives evidence of something she heard from another person but did not see or hear it herself. Secondly, it is quite common nowadays to prosecute without the victim, as in cases where the victim through fear or otherwise, declines to give evidence but the act was witnessed by a police officer or other competent person. This is not case law as you suggest. This was a Magistrates Court decision and that is all. If the defendant appealed on a point of law to a higher court, then onwards to the Law Lords for a 'case stated' then if they upheld the conviction, it would become case law. My final point: it should be noted that the defendant did not say, or infer that the witness was 'telling lies', but that she was mistaken. If he had called her a liar or a perjurer, character would have become an issue. This enables the lady to give her character references and the prosecution may with the consent of the Magistrate, inform the court of anything detrimental to the defendant's character, including, if he has any, (and I am not suggesting for one moment that he did have) previous convictions..................

Answer 2

Wow that has to be a first no evidence what is our justice system come to. Shame on blind justice

Answer 3

There was evidence. Her complaint, his denial. Three magistrates were convinced beyond reasonable doubt. What's the problem?