Maybe because it's all legal argument which they don't want before a potential jury, while the judge decides whether to proceed to trial next month?Hey! well done Legally. What a star!
Why would there be reporting restrictions in such a case? It doesn't involve a child. Hmm.
That sounds like it could be the case. I wonder why they can't even give the next hearing date, unless the CPS has been instructed to go away and only come back when it has better evidence, but they haven't dropped the charges. I don't know, I'm struggling to think of reasons. And did we know it was going to be held at Grimsby? change of venue to keep nosey parkers awayMaybe because it's all legal argument which they don't want before a potential jury, while the judge decides whether to proceed to trial next month?
Could the fact it's so touch and go be prejudicial?
Not sure, just guessing.
Yeah, it does seem a lot more straightforward than I imagined. And he recorded these conversations?Wow, there's quite a bit of info in your link. I don't know why he's been granted bail. Perhaps they don't think he's a danger to the wider community.
I'm completely dumbfounded as to why Lipinski had his charges dropped. And as to why this case has been shrouded in secrecy with reporting restrictions. It has the air of a spy thriller except there is no threat to national security and this is just a dentist and his mate right? I feel we are only getting a watered down version.
He is charged with intentionally encouraging an offence, by recruiting his friend and patient, Robert Lipinski, to obtain the date rape drug GHB so it could be given to Renata. Dr Mustafa, formerly of Beamsley Way, Kingswood, denies the charge.
https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/renata-majid-mustafa-hull-trial-1440829
Encouraging an offence? Not administering the drug himself? The offender no where to be seen?Have the charges changed from conspiracy to incitement?
That could explain why RL is no longer charged.
I've no idea about how this alters the seriousness of the offence.
I read it differently, that he was saying that it would be excusable if it was only to get her finger on the phone.Defence asking witness questions
Michael Bromley-Martin QC, defending, asked Dr Sharp: “Could GHB be used in a low dosage to incapacitate someone for just so long as it would take to be able to place their finger on a mobile telephone’s password touchpad?”
Dr Sharp said: “Not having specific expertise in that particular area, I would go with my best [assessment] and say yes, that is possible. But I have never done it myself.”
“I should think not,” said Mr Bromley-Martin
I dont get the Defence QC point here. It has already been shown that MM wanted the GHB to enable him to access RAs phone. Not sure why the QC is arguing that it can't be done.
In approaching the sentence for an inchoate offence, it is appropriate to start by considering the sentence that would have been appropriate had the objective of the offender been achieved.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Case_compendium_update_four_Jan09.pdf
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.