cubezero3
Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2009
- Member Type
- Student or Learner
- Native Language
- Chinese
- Home Country
- China
- Current Location
- China
Hi, I've been quietly reading the answers from the good teachers here, without logging in, for quite a long time. But today I bumped into the following sentence.
Under C.P.I.A. 1996, s 5(8), this is evidence tending to show that by reason of the presence of the accused at a particular or in a particular area at a particular time, he was not, or was unlikely to have been, at the place where the offence is alleged to have been committed at the time of the alleged commission.
The Longman Dictionary of Law, Seventh Edition, L.B. Curzon and P.H. Richards, Law Press China, Page 24
I've read several UE threads relating to similar topics. Based on the information I've collected, the phrase in bold refers to two points in time, that is a point in the past (was likely) and an earlier point in the past (to have been). To me, this usage here seems rather unnecessary. In "the offence is alleged to have been committed", we can see that people are now aware of the offence ("the offence is alleged"), which happened at some time in the past ("to have been committed"). I think it makes sense to use the simple past tense to talk about whether the accused was at the place of the alleged commission. But the phrase "was unlikely to have been" seems to be talking about a time earlier than the commission of the crime and doesn't fit the context. But this sentence comes from a composer of a dictionary of law. He or she must have had a good reason to use this structure.
I've like to hear your opinions.
Under C.P.I.A. 1996, s 5(8), this is evidence tending to show that by reason of the presence of the accused at a particular or in a particular area at a particular time, he was not, or was unlikely to have been, at the place where the offence is alleged to have been committed at the time of the alleged commission.
The Longman Dictionary of Law, Seventh Edition, L.B. Curzon and P.H. Richards, Law Press China, Page 24
I've read several UE threads relating to similar topics. Based on the information I've collected, the phrase in bold refers to two points in time, that is a point in the past (was likely) and an earlier point in the past (to have been). To me, this usage here seems rather unnecessary. In "the offence is alleged to have been committed", we can see that people are now aware of the offence ("the offence is alleged"), which happened at some time in the past ("to have been committed"). I think it makes sense to use the simple past tense to talk about whether the accused was at the place of the alleged commission. But the phrase "was unlikely to have been" seems to be talking about a time earlier than the commission of the crime and doesn't fit the context. But this sentence comes from a composer of a dictionary of law. He or she must have had a good reason to use this structure.
I've like to hear your opinions.