April 6th Changes

[JohnW2]

So the fact that very few if any cases have been taken to court, that allows it to be considered okay to continue installing systems that have not been proved to be safe and documented as so?

You might want to suggest that - but I certainly didn't, and wouldn't!

On the contrary, whilst pointing out that we can but speculate about how courts would behave (becausethere have been so few cases), I said that I believe a court would probably usually look for compliance with BS7671 as an indicator of compliance with Part P (unless, very rarely, someone produced an expert argument that work was compliant with Part P, although not fully compliant with BS7671).

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

[If there was no contention that he did, and if the <whatever> had happened because of, or through interaction with, the work, and if the prosecution's assertion was that the work, which the defendant agreed he did, had not been done properly, and the defendant could not provide any proof that it had been, then....

In that situation, you're really implying that the prosecution was able to present positive evidence that the <whatever> had happened was the result of something unsatisfactory (hence illegal) about the work - which is surely a whole different situation - that would be "guilty because of evidence of guilt", not "guilty by virtue of inability to prove innocence".

To convict someone simply because (s)he had 'done some work' without any positive evidence that there was anything wrong with the work, or any positive evidence that the work had brought about whatever had happened, simply because they 'could not prove themelves innocent' would not sound very acceptable to me!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

John, I'd agree with all of that, including the bit about it all being somewhat academic as no one ever seems to get prosecuted!

The question of whether people are likley to get prosecuted (or convicted) is not really the issue.

I would hope that no-one would disagree with the (very briefly/broadly stated) requirements of the law (Part P) and that no-one would disagree that it is desirable that this law be complied with. The discussion about courts only arose in relation to the interpretation of what would be regarded as satisfying Part P. I have suggested that, if it ever did get to court, I believe that the court is likley to usually look for compliance with BS7671 as an indicator of probable compliance with the law. I would therefore suggest that the same criterion should be applied by anyone wishing to abide by the law, even though the chances of the matter ever being examined by a court is negligible.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

To convict someone simply because (s)he had 'done some work' without any positive evidence that there was anything wrong with the work, or any positive evidence that the work had brought about whatever had happened, simply because they 'could not prove themelves innocent' would not sound very acceptable to me!

Be that as it may, that's how it could easily go down.

The allegation would be that the accused had not made reasonable provision etc, and the evidence would seem to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that this was the case. He would not be able to refute that case if he could not show that he had taken reasonable care. The accusation might be false, the <whatever> might have happened anyway, but if that's an unlikely scenario, and the accused has nothing which corroborates his assertion that, unlikely or not, that was what happened, then he will not be able to create reasonable doubt.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

[pigecatons]

What if a court were to rule that it was not reasonable to expect a DIYer carrying out a minor job to have and to know how to use test equipment to the standards of a qualified electrician?

[/pigecatons]

 

[JohnW2]

Be that as it may, that's how it could easily go down. The allegation would be that the accused had not made reasonable provision etc, and the evidence would seem to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that this was the case.

As I said, if there was, indeed, 'evidence' that the work he had done was responsible for whatever had happened, then he would, indeed, have a case to answer if he was to introduce some reasonable doubt. However, as I see it, if prosecution case was merely an assertion, not based on any 'evidence', I can't see that his guilt could (should!) conceivably be regarded as being 'proven beyond reasonable doubt'!

It's interesting that we are talking specifically of the situation in which something (presumably fairly catastrophic) has 'happened'- whereas the person who undertakes electrical work which is not compliant with Part P is equally guilty of breaking that law even if (as will usually be the case), nothing 'happens'. Indeed, it may well often be easier to get a conviction if nothing has 'happened', since one of the problems of catastrophes is that they may destroy much of the potential evidence.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

[pigecatons]...[/pigecatons]

You've got me with that one!

What if a court were to rule that it was not reasonable to expect a DIYer carrying out a minor job to have and to know how to use test equipment to the standards of a qualified electrician?

If a court were to make such a ruling, it would obviously become established Case Law unless/until a higher court overturned it. Are you suggesting that you think such a ruling would be likely?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

As I said, if there was, indeed, 'evidence' that the work he had done was responsible for whatever had happened, then he would, indeed, have a case to answer if he was to introduce some reasonable doubt. However, as I see it, if prosecution case was merely an assertion, not based on any 'evidence', I can't see that his guilt could (should!) conceivably be regarded as being 'proven beyond reasonable doubt'!

Isn't that what reasonable doubt means?

They assert that the <whatever> happened because the defendant did not make reasonable provision etc.

The expert witness agrees that there could be another explanation, but in his opinion it's very unlikely, and it's almost certain that the defendant's work was to blame.

With no way to refute that, there is no reasonable doubt.

 

[JohnW2]

Isn't that what reasonable doubt means? They assert that the <whatever> happened because the defendant did not make reasonable provision etc. The expert witness agrees that there could be another explanation, but in his opinion it's very unlikely, and it's almost certain that the defendant's work was to blame.

But you have now implicitly introduced 'evidence' - since one hopes that an expert witness would not say that without some concrete evidence that the defendent had been responsible for the happening. It would be totally irresponsible expert opinion to offer if, say, all the witness knew were that the defendent re-wired the house X years ago and that the house burned down (or one of the occupants was electrocuted) last month.

With no way to refute that, there is no reasonable doubt.

As I keep saying, if that expert opinion were based on concrete evidence/facts, that opinion (and/or the underlying facts) would obviously have to be refuted. If there were no such evidence, one hopes that the expert opinion would be vigorously challenged, as being 'unsafe'. In any event, you introduce the constantly-debated question of the quantification of 'no reasonable doubt'. If even the expert witness says that "there could be another explanation", some (including legal authorities) would say that was an admission of the existance of 'reasonable doubt', no matter how unlikley that 'other explanation'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

[pigecatons]...[/pigecatons]

You've got me with that one!

Took me a while, but take the cat out and what have you got left ? And before you removed it, where was the cat in relation to them ?

 

[JohnW2]

Took me a while, but take the cat out and what have you got left ? And before you removed it, where was the cat in relation to them ?

Goodness The man must do cryptic crosswords, or have been a follower of that wretched TV programme 'CatchPhrase' (or whatever it was called). Thanks for the decoding!!

Kind Regards, John