What a huge waste of public money
Discussion
The train doesn't stop with the CPS, there are multiple safeguards prior to and during a trial.
What's the theory on the the judge / defence team? Incompetent / corrupt? CPS held them to ransom? etc etc.
What's the theory on the the judge / defence team? Incompetent / corrupt? CPS held them to ransom? etc etc.
A10 said:
So the CPS tampered with evidence to try and help get a conviction. But when that wasn't enough, they didn't include it in evidence at all because all the video does is prove their quarry's innocence.
If they felt the need to falsify evidence, it's because they knew he was innocent, yet they still proceeded.
This need investigating and heads should roll.
Disgusting.
They did this right after helping the US military to fly planes into two towers in NYC. If they felt the need to falsify evidence, it's because they knew he was innocent, yet they still proceeded.
This need investigating and heads should roll.
Disgusting.
La Liga said:
The train doesn't stop with the CPS, there are multiple safeguards prior to and during a trial.
What's the theory on the the judge / defence team? Incompetent / corrupt? CPS held them to ransom? etc etc.
The Telegraph reports that the Judge gave the prosecution the opportunity to withdraw the case during the trial but they refused.What's the theory on the the judge / defence team? Incompetent / corrupt? CPS held them to ransom? etc etc.
PurpleMoonlight said:
La Liga said:
The train doesn't stop with the CPS, there are multiple safeguards prior to and during a trial.
What's the theory on the the judge / defence team? Incompetent / corrupt? CPS held them to ransom? etc etc.
The Telegraph reports that the Judge gave the prosecution the opportunity to withdraw the case during the trial but they refused.What's the theory on the the judge / defence team? Incompetent / corrupt? CPS held them to ransom? etc etc.
R v Galbraith 1981 said:
(1) If there is no evidence that the crime alleged has been committed by the defendant, there is no difficulty. The judge will of course stop the case.
(2) The difficulty arises where there is some evidence but it is of a tenuous character, for example because of inherent weakness or vagueness or because it is inconsistent with other evidence.
(a) Where the judge comes to the conclusion that the prosecution evidence, taken at its highest, is such that a jury properly directed could not properly convict upon it, it is his duty, upon a submission being made, to stop the case.
(b) Where however the prosecution evidence is such that its strength or weakness depends on the view to be taken of a witness's reliability or other matters which are generally speaking within the province of the jury and where on one possible view of the facts there is evidence upon which a jury could properly come to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty, then the judge should allow the matter to be tried by the jury.
It follows that we think the second of the two schools of thought is to be preferred. There will of course, as always in this branch of the law, be borderline cases. They can safely be left to the discretion of the judge.
This happened with one charge with the Bill Roache where he was acquitted of one charge at the end of the prosecution case. (2) The difficulty arises where there is some evidence but it is of a tenuous character, for example because of inherent weakness or vagueness or because it is inconsistent with other evidence.
(a) Where the judge comes to the conclusion that the prosecution evidence, taken at its highest, is such that a jury properly directed could not properly convict upon it, it is his duty, upon a submission being made, to stop the case.
(b) Where however the prosecution evidence is such that its strength or weakness depends on the view to be taken of a witness's reliability or other matters which are generally speaking within the province of the jury and where on one possible view of the facts there is evidence upon which a jury could properly come to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty, then the judge should allow the matter to be tried by the jury.
It follows that we think the second of the two schools of thought is to be preferred. There will of course, as always in this branch of the law, be borderline cases. They can safely be left to the discretion of the judge.
La Liga said:
The train doesn't stop with the CPS, there are multiple safeguards prior to and during a trial.
What's the theory on the the judge / defence team? Incompetent / corrupt? CPS held them to ransom? etc etc.
It's being widely reported they tampered with the footage speed to strengthen their case. You don't think this should warrant some attention?What's the theory on the the judge / defence team? Incompetent / corrupt? CPS held them to ransom? etc etc.
A10 said:
So the CPS tampered with evidence to try and help get a conviction. But when that wasn't enough, they didn't include it in evidence at all because all the video does is prove their quarry's innocence.
If they felt the need to falsify evidence, it's because they knew he was innocent, yet they still proceeded.
This need investigating and heads should roll.
Disgusting.
They did this right after helping the US military to fly planes into two towers in NYC. If they felt the need to falsify evidence, it's because they knew he was innocent, yet they still proceeded.
This need investigating and heads should roll.
Disgusting.
An interesting side story to this is the use of registered Oyster cards to trace people. This happened to a woman where I work. A elederly chap was assaulted by a woman at Victoria tube station and left with very bad injuries. My colleage got a knock on the door fron the Police as her Oyster card was used within a certain time frame of the assault. The two coppers wanted to see her handbag and umbrella collection as those carried by the 'perp' were apparently quite unusual. One copper was very sure my colleague fitted the CCTV image (they didn't show it to her) but his partner wasn't convinced. She never heard anything else about it (and she wasn't the attacker - at least she claimed innocence anyway!).
A10 said:
It's being widely reported they tampered with the footage speed to strengthen their case. You don't think this should warrant some attention?
Yes, they thought they'd be cunning and alter the speed of time stamped CCTV. If it weren't for those pesky seconds constantly displayed on the images that the defense (who'd often send CCTV to an expert as standard) would spot it... The police would prepare the CCTV, not the CPS. Who knows why it was slowed. Easier for interview? If the police didn't create a story board the CCTV was probably not that important to the prosecution. The prosecution apparently only used it to show he was there at the time, which I expect wasn't disputed in any event.
When the time spent 'next' to each other is the crux of the prosecution, I'd say any anomaly or tampering with that is a serious issue.
But you don't believe its important. That's up to you. I disagree and question it.
I guess members of the public and peope who question things are a hindrance in your profession.
But you don't believe its important. That's up to you. I disagree and question it.
I guess members of the public and peope who question things are a hindrance in your profession.
La Liga said:
The train doesn't stop with the CPS, there are multiple safeguards prior to and during a trial.
What's the theory on the the judge / defence team? Incompetent / corrupt? CPS held them to ransom? etc etc.
There are. I can imagine if this was a police charge (rather than summons by post) that mouths were agape when the CPS authorised the charge. I'd love to pick through the evidence that was available both before and after the charge. The problem with the CPS being independent of the police but ultimately having the final say about what goes to court is that they can railroad along with prosecutions as they please, and are open to political motivation that doesn't factor in police charging. What's the theory on the the judge / defence team? Incompetent / corrupt? CPS held them to ransom? etc etc.
I wonder if the judge allowed this trial to continue on the basis that the reporting on the matter would be even more impactive after the case was finalised by jury. I am deeply concerned that the fairness of the system is being unfairly weighted against certain people for certain crimes - and I have long though that the defence have it too easy in the majority of criminal trials.
It probably goes without saying, but just to be sure, anyone posting the victim's name places themselves and Haymarket in a rather risky position.
I'm not closed-minded to any suggestions this was an unjust charge, I just think it's more likely there's more to know (well, there certainly is) than every single facet (police, CPS, defence and judge) failed to weed a case where no charge were justified.
Baryonyx said:
There are. I can imagine if this was a police charge (rather than summons by post) that mouths were agape when the CPS authorised the charge. I'd love to pick through the evidence that was available both before and after the charge. The problem with the CPS being independent of the police but ultimately having the final say about what goes to court is that they can railroad along with prosecutions as they please, and are open to political motivation that doesn't factor in police charging.
I wonder if the judge allowed this trial to continue on the basis that the reporting on the matter would be even more impactive after the case was finalised by jury. I am deeply concerned that the fairness of the system is being unfairly weighted against certain people for certain crimes - and I have long though that the defence have it too easy in the majority of criminal trials.
You may well be aware of the following given your post. It's not an offence the police can charge. It'd be investigated by the police and they'd send it to the CPS for advice. The CPS then review it and make a charging decision based on these tests: https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown...I wonder if the judge allowed this trial to continue on the basis that the reporting on the matter would be even more impactive after the case was finalised by jury. I am deeply concerned that the fairness of the system is being unfairly weighted against certain people for certain crimes - and I have long though that the defence have it too easy in the majority of criminal trials.
I'm not closed-minded to any suggestions this was an unjust charge, I just think it's more likely there's more to know (well, there certainly is) than every single facet (police, CPS, defence and judge) failed to weed a case where no charge were justified.
La Liga said:
ou may well be aware of the following given your post. It's not an offence the police can charge. It'd be investigated by the police and they'd send it to the CPS for advice. The CPS then review it and make a charging decision based on these tests: https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown...
I'm not closed-minded to any suggestions this was an unjust charge, I just think it's more likely there's more to know (well, there certainly is) than every single facet (police, CPS, defence and judge) failed to weed a case where no charge were justified.
Yes, I'm aware it's a case that the CPS would ultimately decide on whether or not a charge or summons would be issued. I'm hesitant to say much more on this case but I would welcome some sort of proper review.I'm not closed-minded to any suggestions this was an unjust charge, I just think it's more likely there's more to know (well, there certainly is) than every single facet (police, CPS, defence and judge) failed to weed a case where no charge were justified.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff