On May 16, 4:31*pm, Bill Borland wrote:
The evidence is the distress.

So all that's needed now is to produce a witness who claims to be
distressed to make anything illegal.

Except for certain specific offences (speeding in a motor vehicle
being one of them), the uncorroberated evidence of a single witness
can be enough for most offences, provided the court believes them.

But who, other than the distressed person, can possibly testify as
to whether he or she was indeed distressed? *Any other person's
opinion would be just that - an opinion, not testimony on a matter
of fact.

Surely the test is 'could reasonably be expected to have caused
distress', not 'actually did cause distress'?

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org