Another story in yesterday’s press (and covered further today) dealt with the female driving instructor, Denise Dawson , who had been mugged by a gang of violent thugs on an estate in Bristol. She’d positively identified the one who robbed her – and with whom she had struggled – at an identity parade.
The thug in question was Liam Perks (20). As it turns out, he is obviously some species of pond life:
The court heard that Perks, of Henbury, Bristol, had admitted a separate charge of conspiracy to burgle, for his involvement in a gang which stole motorcycles and prestige cars. He is awaiting sentence for that offence
You’d think this little weasel would be on a hiding to nothing, wouldn’t you? Not so. The Judge – possibly a victim of a blow to the head at some stage in an earlier part of his life – decided:
…Mrs Dawson’s good character and compelling evidence could sway the jury, even though she had had only a fleeting glimpse of her attacker.
He said: ‘Denise Dawson was a particularly impressive witness because she showed courage, clarity of thought and was undoubtedly honest. The jury may lend more weight to her evidence than the facts allow. You cannot be sure she got it right.’
The judge said that her evidence was not enough for a conviction.
You couldn’t make it up, could you? A positive ID of a known thug ‘isn’t enough for a conviction ‘.
This so-called ‘judge’ (Jamie Tabor ) also freed a woman who tried to poison her husband with rat poison because he (her husband) was cheating on her. Mr Tabor seems to have an unfortunate habit of imagining up complicated backgrounds to relatively simple cases. You can’t help wondering at what point he would actually side with the victim and against the accused…
I mean, if someone is happy to try and poison a family member, surely they have committed a crime which puts other people at risk no matter how out-of-character it was, how sorry they were, or how disturbed they may have been? Same as someone who kills, mugs, rapes, and so on.