StuartW wrote:
Would be interesting to know what happened with the case, though - he could have been entirely innocent, and the revocation upheld simply because he didn't declare he was on remand.
Can't see any ambiguity there, and it's all in the past tense. I assumed anyone reading had already read Sussex's post, and that, together with the words 'revocation upheld' (ie the civil/revocation stuff) because he 'didn't declare he was on remand' (ie the criminal stuff) meant that when I asked what had 'happened with the case' I was meaning the criminal case rather than the licence revocation stuff and appeal to the magistrates'.
And, of course, I was assuming that the average reader (particularly someone as astute as yourself) would know what I was on about without spelling everything out, but maybe adding the a few more words would help clarify (but which I kind of thought my use of the word 'innocent' would convey, because that's a word more associated with criminal rather than civil/quasi-judicial proceedings (guilty v innocent, and all that)).
Therefore (and there's nothing removed from here - just a few words added):
StuartW wrote:
Would be interesting to know what happened with the criminal case, though, rather than the civil/quasi-judicial process - he could have been entirely innocent, and the revocation upheld simply because he didn't declare he was on remand.
(And, again, the above assumes that anyone reading has already read Sussex's post, and also assumes a certain amount of knowledge about licensing law and criminal proceedings, blah, blah...)