Grrr, dog owners !

[Neil]

'even if you think a dog may bite you (or your children, if any are with you), even if it is on a lead'...

...hardly constitutes a 'dangerously out of control' dog now does it?

I have been on the receiving end of a malicious complaint about one of our dogs when I remonstrated with a woman who was walking her dog on one of those extending leads, allowing it to crap in my driveway whilst she stood 10' away pretending she didn't know what it was doing. Our Great Dane came running down the drive to see what the fuss was all about and barked at her when she started shouting at me (he was too much of a wuss to actually leave the driveway!)...

...the next thing we knew we had two Coppers standing in our kitchen lecturing me on responsible dog ownership!

I very politely asked them to leave...

...the CPS can be a very useful organisation when it works

You can't see anything here that would be considered a material fact?

The dog crap?

Doesn't say anybody witnessed this - just one persons word against another - and both dog owners <shrug>

Perhaps you need to think about where you are getting your interpretations and opinions of the legal system from!

et tu.

Did the police take it any further? And given that Steve says he asked them to leave...

He said, she said, is not a robust form of prosecution, with no other corroboration - that's all I've been saying.

So to get back to my interpretations and opinions - Steve - were you prosecuted? Were you even charged?

 

[highlandsflyer]

Mine come from Holland and Webb, amongst others.

The material facts in Stevo's scenario would certainly include the dog running towards the complainant and barking.

In IDB1s scenario, if the dog reacted in no way to the complainant but remained still and quiet on its lead, that would be a material fact.

 

[Neil]

Mine come from Holland and Webb, amongst others.

The material facts in Stevo's scenario would certainly include the dog running towards the complainant and barking.

That's hardly material fact - far from it. With no other corroboration, it's just one person's claim.

If, for example, it either didn't happen - but it was claimed, or did happen, and Steve denied it - it's just one person's word against another - and all other things being equal, that's just stalemate.

In IDB1s scenario, if the dog reacted in no way to the complainant but remained still and quiet on its lead, that would be a material fact.

Um, "facts" have to be more tangible, than simply one person's claim.

In IDB1's scenario, if there were no other witnesses, no other corroboration, and no relevant history - if somebody complaining said one thing, and somebody defending denied it - unless one of them is notably more / less credible than the other, you simply have stalemate, and it takes more than just simply what the complainant "thought".

edit: and I've noted no laugh for the dog crap line - your card is marked as a misery guts.

 

[IDB1]

edit: and I've noted no laugh for the dog crap line - your card is marked as a misery guts.

Sorry... but...

 

[highlandsflyer]

On matters of humour, I would seek a second opinion. Preferably a qualified one.

Meanwhile, your starter for ten is to see if you can garner a concept of what constitutes a material fact from this opening paragraph...

 

[Neil]

On matters of humour, I would seek a second opinion. Preferably a qualified one.

Your card is marked, sunshine - you're officially a misery - there, I said it. Didn't want to. Wasn't going to. But you made me. There. FACT.

Moving on...

Meanwhile, your starter for ten is to see if you can garner a concept of what constitutes a material fact from this opening paragraph...

"The first job of the court must be to establish the existence of the facts alleged within a given case", "Assessing the materiality of facts is chiefly dependent upon the legal issues involved in each case", "...so that it is not uncommon for certain facts to be agreed or admitted before a case comes to trial".

If person A says "X happened" and person B says "No it didn't", and there's no other corroboration than each others' statements" then X is not a "fact". If person A says "I was at position Y at a time of Z" and person B agrees that person A was at position Y at a time of Z, then that will be considered a "fact".

"What appears to be material to a client is often immaterial to the lawyer, and vice versa". Poignant...

Everything somebody claims to be true, is not taken as "fact". It's only fact if it's not under dispute - otherwise, it remains to be seen whether anything supporting it, whether it's under dispute, or whether on the balance of probabilities and reasonableness, it's probably true.

 

[We_are_Stevo]

Blimey! Didn't this get interesting after I quit for bed...

Brilliant counsel from Neil

No, of course the Police didn't take it any further; you'd have to be privvy to the rest of the background to the whole scenario to appreciate why but this is hardly the place for that! :?

 

[highlandsflyer]

You still don't understand what you are talking about, both in regards to what material facts are and in your assessment my character.

Very schoolboy.

 

[highlandsflyer]

Just to point out that post was for Monkey Man.

 

[Neil]

You still don't understand what you are talking about, both in regards to what material facts are

Rubbish.

and in your assessment my character.

And, um, rubbish.

Very schoolboy.

Well I do have something of a youthful charm - so, um, thanks for that.