Hairy Cornflake (DLT) NOT GUILTY
Discussion
rohrl said:
Kier Starmer has published an article about the decision making behind prosecution today.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/...
Thank you for that link. This bit has me a bit perplexed:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/...
Kier Starmer Comment is Free Guardian newspaper website 13 Feb 2014 said:
One of the reasons that the cases of the four victims who did report allegations against Jimmy Savile to the police during his lifetime were not pursued is because, stung by earlier criticism that they had "trawled" for victims in the past, the police were over-cautious and decided not to tell any one victim that they were not alone in making their allegation. Do we really want another Savile moment?
It reminds me of the findings of the Birchard Report. Perhaps those four women that came forward about Savile were before Huntley and the subsequent report?Does it really matter when there seems to be much variability in the way accusations, victims and the alleged perpetrators are dealt with? There may be many laws, regulations, frameworks and guidelines but there seems to be much scope for fudge factoring.
turbobloke said:
Bill said:
Not convinced it does tbh.
dandarez said:
Jury were though.
This article extract gives some insight into the way the jury were thinking and marks the acquittal as a result of believing DLT over the accusers.
The jury comprised eight women and four men – the same male-female split as the jury who cleared Coronation Street star William Roache last week.
On the third day of their deliberations, they sent a question to the Judge asking what to do if they believed a woman’s testimony but had no additional evidence.
The question read: ‘Miss Moore (the prosecutor), in summing up, said if we believe that the complainant was telling the truth, then we must find the defendant guilty. Can you give us any guidance on how that should be weighed with the lack of supporting evidence and the passage of time so we are sure beyond reasonable doubt?’
In response, the Judge reminded them the prosecutor had said that, if they concluded what the complainant said was accurate and truthful, then they should convict.
The jurors went back into their room and continued deliberating for a further day. In the end, they decided to believe Travis’s account.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2558992/Wh...
Do we need legislation on requiring people to report crimes within a certain time scale - if someone commits a crime and it goes unreported, surely the original victim perpetrates to some extent, future crimes...
Kronstein said:
Does every trail such as this have an 8:4 female to male ratio. I seem to recall several of these types of trial having the same ratio. How is this an unbiased jury selection - only a small step to having all women rape jurys...
This trial was discussed towards the end of Radio 4's Any Questions lastnight. It's repeated early this afternoon. One of the female panelists said she was a victim when she was young so she was quite vociferous on the topic and seemed to be pushing to say historic allegations should be investigated. Kronstein said:
Do we need legislation on requiring people to report crimes within a certain time scale - if someone commits a crime and it goes unreported, surely the original victim perpetrates to some extent, future crimes...
Trouble is sometimes the police aren't keen to investigate matters, so they could delay and play for time if it doesn't suit them and/or shows them in a bad light.In 2006 a Detective Constable in Devon went to BBC's Panorama as she wasn't happy a way a paedophile investigation was being dealt with. Seems that they're now going to look at it again, basically they left loads of leads and victims without checking them all. About a decade ago there was a Fish Merchant owner I think in Looe that thought one of her employees was using company computers to download and store child pornography. She had to hire a private company to investigate her suspicions as the police couldn't or wouldn't. I'm not sure where that sits with a victim of PC Danny Bryant reportedly being told by an Inspector in front of his mother that trials of such nature can be unpleasant for victims and query whether they wanted to go ahead with their actions.
In SP&L this week someone posted that it seemed they'd procrastinated their way out of a speeding fine or SAC course having passed the six months limit. That police worker at Portishead that was in court for points swapping with her PC chap seemed to have got off with one of her speeding NIPs by playing the same delaying action.
I'm wary that such a rule on time limits could be another loophole or technicality to be played.
carinaman said:
This trial was discussed towards the end of Radio 4's Any Questions lastnight. It's repeated early this afternoon. One of the female panelists said she was a victim when she was young so she was quite vociferous on the topic and seemed to be pushing to say historic allegations should be investigated.
In 2006 a Detective Constable in Devon went to BBC's Panorama as she wasn't happy a way a paedophile investigation was being dealt with. Seems that they're now going to look at it again, basically they left loads of leads and victims without checking them all. About a decade ago there was a Fish Merchant owner I think in Looe that thought one of her employees was using company computers to download and store child pornography. She had to hire a private company to investigate her suspicions as the police couldn't or wouldn't. I'm not sure where that sits with a victim of PC Danny Bryant reportedly being told by an Inspector in front of his mother that trials of such nature can be unpleasant for victims and query whether they wanted to go ahead with their actions.
In SP&L this week someone posted that it seemed they'd procrastinated their way out of a speeding fine or SAC course having passed the six months limit. That police worker at Portishead that was in court for points swapping with her PC chap seemed to have got off with one of her speeding NIPs by playing the same delaying action.
I'm wary that such a rule on time limits could be another loophole or technicality to be played.
Did the women panellist report the issue - I would hope she did but to mention it and not report...Kronstein said:
Do we need legislation on requiring people to report crimes within a certain time scale - if someone commits a crime and it goes unreported, surely the original victim perpetrates to some extent, future crimes...
Trouble is sometimes the police aren't keen to investigate matters, so they could delay and play for time if it doesn't suit them and/or shows them in a bad light.In 2006 a Detective Constable in Devon went to BBC's Panorama as she wasn't happy a way a paedophile investigation was being dealt with. Seems that they're now going to look at it again, basically they left loads of leads and victims without checking them all. About a decade ago there was a Fish Merchant owner I think in Looe that thought one of her employees was using company computers to download and store child pornography. She had to hire a private company to investigate her suspicions as the police couldn't or wouldn't. I'm not sure where that sits with a victim of PC Danny Bryant reportedly being told by an Inspector in front of his mother that trials of such nature can be unpleasant for victims and query whether they wanted to go ahead with their actions.
In SP&L this week someone posted that it seemed they'd procrastinated their way out of a speeding fine or SAC course having passed the six months limit. That police worker at Portishead that was in court for points swapping with her PC chap seemed to have got off with one of her speeding NIPs by playing the same delaying action.
I'm wary that such a rule on time limits could be another loophole or technicality to be played.
Good point on the time limit stuff (I wasn't suggesting a time limit to exclude police investigation of a crime rather a time limit for people to report crimes) also reporting and it not being investigated (then reinvestigated later) differs from not reporting in the first place - if someone's > 21 then surely they have a responsibility to others to report a crime within a reasonable time frame.
Kronstein said:
...
Do we need legislation on requiring people to report crimes within a certain time scale - if someone commits a crime and it goes unreported, surely the original victim perpetrates to some extent, future crimes...
If we had such a rule, those prep school teachers who raped boys in the 60s/70s would not have been brought to justice the other week. What about the brutal Holocaust camp guard finally tracked down now? Justice should not be about empty vengeance, but is there not some societal imperative in holding the worst sort of criminals to account even if their crimes were committed long ago?Do we need legislation on requiring people to report crimes within a certain time scale - if someone commits a crime and it goes unreported, surely the original victim perpetrates to some extent, future crimes...
The difficulty that genuine victims of sexual abuse may have in coming forward and being believed should not be underestimated.
As for acquittals generally, people are acquitted of criminal charges on a daily basis, without associated public clamour. If the CPS were only to prosecute dead certs, few cases would be prosecuted. The trial process is by its nature organic and unpredictable.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 15th February 12:19
Kronstein said:
if someone's > 21 then surely they have a responsibility to others to report a crime within a reasonable time frame.
Yes, I agree. In UK the law generally prevents claims for damages being brought - after more than
23 years for personal injury, and - after more than 6 years in other cases
For criminal charges perhaps a longer period would be appropriate - say 10 years from the crime or from age 18 - with no limit in cases where the victim is rendered unable to report the crime. (e.g. Dead or severely disabled.)
As with civil cases, there can always be the possibility of asking a higher court for special permission for a case to be brought "out of time" where circumstances indicate that would be fair and reasonable.
Edited by Ozzie Osmond on Saturday 15th February 17:58
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/people-inv...
I thought I'd leave that there as an indication of how long it can take to catch up with some people. This could compare with The Mirror getting the conviction against Levi Bellfield for the killing of Milly Dowler. It would also seem topical with the discussion about that former Teacher Curran that at religious school in Humberside being discussed in SP&L.
I thought I'd leave that there as an indication of how long it can take to catch up with some people. This could compare with The Mirror getting the conviction against Levi Bellfield for the killing of Milly Dowler. It would also seem topical with the discussion about that former Teacher Curran that at religious school in Humberside being discussed in SP&L.
Ozzie Osmond said:
Yes, I agree. In UK the law generally prevents claims for damages being brought
For criminal charges perhaps a longer period would be appropriate - say 10 years from the crime or from age 18 - with no limit in cases where the victim is rendered unable to report the crime. (e.g. Dead or severely disabled.)
As with civil cases, there can always be the possibility of asking a higher court for special permission for a case to be brought "out of time" where circumstances indicate that would be fair and reasonable.
My understanding is that personal injury claims can be brought up to 3 years following emergence of the injury. Perhaps you're confusing it with the normal timescale for CICA claims?- after more than 2 years for personal injury, and
- after more than 6 years in other cases
For criminal charges perhaps a longer period would be appropriate - say 10 years from the crime or from age 18 - with no limit in cases where the victim is rendered unable to report the crime. (e.g. Dead or severely disabled.)
As with civil cases, there can always be the possibility of asking a higher court for special permission for a case to be brought "out of time" where circumstances indicate that would be fair and reasonable.
As for time limits with crime, for summary only (Magistrate heard) offences, there is typically a 6 month limitation from date of offence. For indictable/either way offences this time limit is normally removed, quite rightly in my opinion. Serious crimes that only come to light much later should not leave the perpetrator immune or the victim unable to seek redress.
10 Pence Short said:
My understanding is that personal injury claims can be brought up to 3 years following emergence of the injury.
Thanks, you are quite correct.The Limitation Act states that actions for personal injury must be commenced within three years of the accident, or within three years of the date that the person had knowledge of their injuries.
Silent1 said:
sjp63 said:
Won't his legal fees be paid (refunded) as he's not guilty?
Not unless he was awarded costs which is unlikely IIRCMy assumption being correct, lets hope he ticked that box before it all started.
10 Pence Short said:
Not for criminal work there won't be. I cant imagine any ATE insurer wanting to take on the odds in a criminal trial.
An interesting question. Of course, one can get insurance against criminal prosecution but I would have thought not once a prosecution has begun or been suggested.CPS announcing this morning he's to face a retrial on two charges.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26322552
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26322552
Chim said:
This is just to far, way to far. I would not be surprised if this is enough to break the man completely. How this is being allowed to continue is beyond me and I am sickened to the stomach by the actions of the CPS in this.
Precisely my thoughts. Given the extent of the acquittals on all three matters with multiple supposedly believable witnesses against Bill Roache and the Hairy cornflake I do wonder whether the defence will try an abuse of process application or a judicial review. That is what Freddie Starr's lawyers are intimating with four sets of charges and not one prosecution at all. The scatter gun approach is a very bad approach legally and this is dangerously close to trying, (or not trying) but ruining the lives of the unfortunate supposed accused except in the FS case where they are not even actually accused. CPS are clearly out of control on this they are trying it on. On an off chance which is very poor law and seriously vindictive IMO. also in the news today, or new head of CPS is engaging the services of more high powered laywers to go chasing money held abroad, starting with Spain and UAE... apparently they think there's £200M out there...
my feeling is even if that were true, they won't see any of it but will spend half of it on specialist legal teams... (jobs for the boys!)
my feeling is even if that were true, they won't see any of it but will spend half of it on specialist legal teams... (jobs for the boys!)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff