On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 10:24:05 PM UTC, Alycidon wrote:
On Tuesday, 23 February 2016 22:19:22 UTC, Tom Crispin wrote:

Yes - the reported evidence does seem a bit thin for a conviction. However, the explanation given by former PCSO Mackenzie suggests that there is evidence which has not been reported. Why else would he claim that his number plate had been cloned?

An obvious wriggle by the driver who who was trying to squirm his way out of the offence.

Obvious to the jury, clearly. But not so obvious on the reported evidence - one person's word against that of another. It is not difficult to imagine a situation where someone might be coerced into giving false evidence against a PCSO.