Re: Unfair Parking Fine - Can I appear in court for my Dad?

ceres wrote:
On 17 Nov, 21:56, Alex Heney <m...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 01:32:40 -0800 (PST), ceres

He seems to think that the balance of probablities applies to the identity
of the offender rather than the evidence itself.
I know.
And even then he seems to think that if the overall statistics for
something show a 51% probability, then it will be decided that way
unless it can actually be shown to be otherwise.
That simply isn't "how it works".
Of course, it's not usually possible to allocate an exact percentage
like this. If you could, however, it would be perverse for a judge to
rule that the balance of probabilities lay in favour of the remaining
49% and decide that way, wouldn't it? On what basis could he possibly
and rationally do that?
Perhaps you'd better explain how you think it does work then, rather
than simply swish the matter away in your typically dismissive,
unreasoned manner.
It generally works on the basis that it is up to the claimant to prove
their case.
Indeed, but only to the level of proof required by the court in
question, ie 'on the balance of probabilities' which means, as a
matter of straightforward English, anything slightly over 50%. Let's
call it 51% as shorthand.
No,. we will not call it "51% in shorthand".

It is not anywhere NEAR that.

So, since you wilfully disregard the plain English language meaning,
what is it anywhere near?

While this does not have to be to quite the same rigorous standard as
a criminal case of "beyond reasonable doubt", it certainly *does* have
to be to a standard such that a judge thinks there is a *noticeably*
better chance that the claimant is correct than that he isn't.
If the factors make it appear to be fairly closely balanced, then the
judge will generally find in favour of the respondent.
There is no legal requirement for there to be a 'noticeably' better
chance, by which I asuume you mean significantly more than 51%. If
there is, do please quote it.
I don't have the slightest interest in whether *you* think there is a
legal basis or not.

Oh, and I thought this was a forum for the discussion of legal
topics. How strange.

Obviously I was wrong as far as you are concerned. All you want is to
win arguments by shouting louder and throwing hissy fits rather than
by rational thought.

Ho hum.

It is what happens in practice.

Oh yeah?

Prove it.

You're the one with the contrary position. *You* prove it.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Unfair Parking Fine - Can I appear in court for my Dad?
    ... of the offender rather than the evidence itself. ... rule that the balance of probabilities lay in favour of the remaining ... his favour, however, the judge is then duty bound to find for him ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Unfair Parking Fine - Can I appear in court for my Dad?
    ... rule that the balance of probabilities lay in favour of the remaining ... It generally works on the basis that it is up to the claimant to prove ... to be to a standard such that a judge thinks there is a *noticeably* ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Aldi Car Park
    ... But it shows the approach one judge took, and it's unlikely he'd be the only one to take the view he did. ... balance of probabilities to decide whether the guy was the correct one ... And he had to do that 'on the balance of probabilities' since that is the civil standard of proof required. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: looney / sectioned
    ... probabilities - exactly what happened on this planet 2,700 years ago. ... arrive at a *balance of probabilities*. ... the ruling group seek especially to control the ... Vivisection or animal experimentation is organised crime and is the ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: CSA to be run from India?
    ... >> Balance of probabilities useful when its not 50/50. ... Yet a hell of a lot of shared care decisions are 50/50. ... >> evidence backing up what they say, ...
    (uk.gov.agency.csa)
Loading