so HK police is arguing that HK police CCTV is not reliable? cannot be used as evidence in court ?
those folks convicted by CCTV footage will be looking closely at this....
Accused officers cast doubts on police CCTV - RTHK
Scorched earth defence?
At some point the prosecution will just have to approach the defence and promise them a deal before every case in the history of cases in HK is overturned due to the defence shenanigans.
I found the fact they tried to argue that the news footage was faked already a bit far fetched, but this definitely is ridiculous. Would be very surprised if the judge were to agree that the CCTV footage is not authentic, so anyone with some trial experience who could perhaps enlighten us to why they even bother making these claims ?
Last edited by threesummers; 08-06-2016 at 11:25 PM.
Well, there is a difference between them paying for the defence our of their own salaries or if its paid in e.g. legal aid.Original Post Deleted
Do we need a new thread on this? Already been raised here:
https://geoexpat.com/forum/342/thread329485.html
What kind of logic is this? One is an expense rendered for services and the other is (possibly) paid due to them not properly carrying out these services. In the same manner, you can claim that taxpayers fund prostitution or drug dealers - fairly sure there will be at least a handful of Hong Kong's civil servants among their patrons.Original Post Deleted