ELI5: Explain Like I'm 5

R v Betts and Ridley

Okay, kiddo, let me explain R v Betts and Ridley. It's a story about two people who found themselves in big trouble with the law.

You see, there are rules that everyone needs to follow, and when you break those rules, you can get in trouble with the police. Betts and Ridley were two guys who didn't follow the rules, and they ended up being accused of a very serious crime.

Now, when someone is accused of a crime, they have to go to court. It's like a big game of make-believe where the judge is the boss and the lawyers are the players who try to convince the boss who is right and who is wrong.

In this case, the lawyers for Betts and Ridley argued that the police didn't have enough evidence to say for sure that their clients were guilty. They said that the police got the evidence by breaking the rules themselves, which made it unfair.

The judge in the case agreed with the lawyers and said that the evidence couldn't be used in court. Without that evidence, there wasn't enough proof that Betts and Ridley did the crime, so they were found not guilty.

So, the lesson of the story is that following the rules is very important, and when people don't follow them, they can get in big trouble. And sometimes, even the people who are supposed to enforce the rules can get in trouble for breaking them.