was likely to have been

[cubezero3]

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.

 

[emsr2d2]

Welcome back.

You didn't "bump into" the sentence. You "came across the sentence".

Legalese can be a nightmare to understand. At its most basic level, this means "The evidence that shows that the accused was in place/area A at the time of the crime shows that he was unlikely to have been in place B (where the crime was committed)."

 

[SoothingDave]

It's not talking about some time earlier than the crime. I don't know where you get that idea. "Since he was in location A, it is unlikely for him to have been in location B at the same time."

 

[jutfrank]

Can you clarify your question? Are you asking whether there's a difference between the following?:

a) he was unlikely to be
b) he was unlikely to have been
c) he is unlikely to have been

 

[cubezero3]

Yes, jutfrank, I'm essentially asking the following two questions. Is there a difference between the following two structures? If so, is it correct to think some native speakers, even though he or she is the composer of a dictionary of law, don't always pay attention to the difference. I remember reading in a thread here a long time ago that a teacher said although be going to do is different from will do, some just don't pay attention to it.

1) he is unlikely to have been
2) he was unlikely to have been

But please allow me to reply to SoothingDave's comment first, as the reply forms an integral part of how I understand the sentence.

SoothingDave, I agree with you in the sense that I think your understanding of the sentence is the only way it can make sense. This is one of two sentences that form a dictionary entry that explains what evidence in support of alibi is. That's the whole context. My instinct tells me that the only plausible sequence of events is that an offence was committed, someone was caught, and in defence he claimed he had not been at the scene of the crime. So here, "he was unlikely to have been at the place" can only be interpreted to mean, as you put it, "it is unlikely for him to have been in location B at the same time".

As I mentioned above, I've been quietly reading the threads here. Currently, I'm reading the ones from May, 2020. In April and May that year, there were several threads about similar topics, which left me with the impression that the two structures, numbered above, have different meanings. The first verb, is, or was, expresses when the likelihood is considered. So the two structures can be rewritten as following, purely for the purpose of showing the time relationship:

1> someone considers now his likelihood to have been
2> someone considered some time in the past his likelihood to have been

The second verb, in the form of to have done, serves to place the time to an earlier point. So, in 1>, we have two points in time: now and the past, and in 2>: the past and the more distant past.

This is where my confusion came from. I should base my understand on how the write put down his idea. But the very sentence contains these two parts:

3) he was unlikely to have been at the place
4) the offence is alleged to have been committed at the time of the alleged offence

My Cambridge dictionary tells me allege means: to say that someone has done something illegal. If I'm not mistaken, the above two sentences can be rewritten as:

3> he was said to be unlikely to have been at the place (when the offence was committed)
4> the offence is said to have been committed at the time of the alleged offence

The two refer to the same point in time. The mind is boggled.

I came up with three explanations for this.

1 The writer made a faux pas. But that's a dictionary of law.
2 This is an exception of some sort I wasn't aware of.
3 There is a difference. But it's not too big of an issue, so even careful native writers don't always pay attention to the nuance here.

Currently, I'm inclined to think 3 is the most plausible answer. But I'm not certain. Hence my question here.

Please take your time. I've been using this great forum for over ten years and I understand how much personal time teachers here have to sacrifice to come up with all these good answers.

PS:

Adding to my confusion, I noticed emer2d2 also used "he was unlikely to have been in place B".

 

[Tarheel]

It's hard to know how to respond to a post that's so long.

I don't know if "quietly reading" makes sense in Chinese.

What are you confused about?

 

[jutfrank]

Is there a difference between the following two structures?

1) he is unlikely to have been
2) he was unlikely to have been

Yes, the tenses. The first says something about present probability and second says something about past probability.

If so, is it correct to think some native speakers, even though he or she is the composer of a dictionary of law, don't always pay attention to the difference.

I'd say so, yes. Moreover, it doesn't usually make any real difference whether the probability is present or past. In this context, the difference between present and past probability amounts to the difference between saying 'It is currently considered that the probability that the statement 'He was there' is true is low, as opposed to 'It was at that time considered that the probability that the statement 'He was there' is true is low.