No surprises

The first defendant, from King's Lynn, said the BPI had no direct evidence of infringement, but the judges dismissed this and ordered him to make an immediate payment of £5,000.

Hmm, so you can be found guilty without actual evidence now?

― mark grout (mark grout), Friday, 27 January 2006 12:33 (twenty years ago)

there's a slight difference between a defendant claiming there is no evidence and there actually being no evidence.

― fact checking cuz (fcc), Friday, 27 January 2006 12:56 (twenty years ago)

Hmm, so you can't even lie in court anymore?

― Dittoismus (Dada), Friday, 27 January 2006 13:03 (twenty years ago)