What a huge waste of public money
Discussion
turbobloke said:
IANAL and you'd need to ask them. Experience perhaps?
Unlikely. Whether there is a case to answer is a fundamental question. turbobloke said:
When it comes to things like this, laboriously and nechanically following some process is never a guarantee of a quality outcome. And by that I don't mean the verdict...as it can hardly be said that justice has been done with the male's name trashed and the woman remaining anonymous for p-c reasons only.
Of course, which is why humans make the decisions. Most sexual offence investigations never a see a court room because of insufficient evidence. It's nothing special or atypical to discontinue a case. The point I am making is, if it got to a jury there was a realistic prospect of conviction. There are loads of safeguards / processes to bin unfit prosecutions.
Also keep in mind the overarching principles of justice a judge will be working from. They won't allow a jury to consider a matter if the case is so deficient.
Anonymity is a different matter and I expect you and I have some common ground there.
PurpleMoonlight said:
La Liga said:
That still doesn't address the key questions in court, does it?
If the case were so weak why didn't the defence try to have the trial discontinued / halted?
If we're reading into things with wholly incomplete information, the absence applications (or their success) such suggests there were a case to answer.
Maybe they did.If the case were so weak why didn't the defence try to have the trial discontinued / halted?
If we're reading into things with wholly incomplete information, the absence applications (or their success) such suggests there were a case to answer.
But they aren't required to supply the prosecution with their defence evidence before it is presented in court, are they?
Disclosure is complex, but it's pretty open in general. Both, especially the defence, are going to know where they stand before the trial begins. The defence will be fully positioned, prior to the trial, to consider if they think there's a case to answer or not.
La Liga said:
nd if they did, why did the judge decline it?
Disclosure is complex, but it's pretty open in general. Both, especially the defence, are going to know where they stand before the trial begins. The defence will be fully positioned, prior to the trial, to consider if they think there's a case to answer or not.
The CCTV evidence publicised seems pretty damning against the alleged victims claim , so if the CPS were aware of it then they really aren't fit for purpose.Disclosure is complex, but it's pretty open in general. Both, especially the defence, are going to know where they stand before the trial begins. The defence will be fully positioned, prior to the trial, to consider if they think there's a case to answer or not.
Jonesy23 said:
La Liga said:
The system is always right.
I think that's a reasonable summary of your position? Colour me f
king shocked. Here ladies and gentlemen is why the system is in the state it is. Whether CPS, B&B or Internet plastic plod.Can I similarly summarise your position that you take everything written in the Mail as being true and an accurate reflection of events? Or is that a little unfair and simplistic?
Jonesy23 said:
La Liga said:
The system is always right.
I think that's a reasonable summary of your position? Colour me f
king shocked. Here ladies and gentlemen is why the system is in the state it is. Whether CPS, B&B or Internet plastic plod. I think all he's saying is there must be a bit more to it than what the Mail and Telegraph show - and I'd love to know what it is.
La Liga said:
es, wholly reasonable.
Can I similarly summarise your position that you take everything written in the Mail as being true and an accurate reflection of events? Or is that a little unfair and simplistic?
To be fair, they didn't need to write much. A few pictures a couple of seconds apart shows it never happened.Can I similarly summarise your position that you take everything written in the Mail as being true and an accurate reflection of events? Or is that a little unfair and simplistic?
PurpleMoonlight said:
The CCTV evidence publicised seems pretty damning against the alleged victims claim .
Never mind that, run this where no CCTV was availableHow do you prove yourself innocent?
Assuming there is no CCTV how would you prove this happened let alone that it didnt happen?
Bedford Rascal said:
What was the actress trying to get out of this? Seems bonkers. Presumably he was just a random member of the public? She must have raised a complaint initially?
CPS actions shameful.
Could be that she has a mental illness and requires the attention she received in her younger days? CPS actions shameful.
La Liga said:
What's the end goal for the bent CPS? What do they do about the jury? Threaten their families? Blackmail them all?
no but if you have a well respected actress saying 'It was him'
and a random guy off the street saying 'not me guv'
and nothing else
what's the percentages either way?
La Liga said:
What's the end goal for the bent CPS? What do they do about the jury? Threaten their families? Blackmail them all?
Looks like a case for Hanlon's razor to me: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence."It's the incompetence that needs dealing with.
Bedford Rascal said:
What was the actress trying to get out of this? Seems bonkers. Presumably he was just a random member of the public? She must have raised a complaint initially?
CPS actions shameful.
I have no idea BUT, looking at the CCTV, looking at the way she turns around, it looks like he bumped into her, perhaps a bit heavily (a risk of commuting, likely an accident), which p*ssed off her highly strung ego, especially as he did not stop or apologise. CPS actions shameful.
Then perhaps she decided she wanted revenge, to teach him a lesson. The police interview quoted seems to suggests she made more of her shoulder being hurt than anything else to begin with.
Is this is the case she should be in a fair bit of trouble - after all without the CCTV she could have wrecked his life on a lie. Given this potential outcome, this is way more serious than a whole load of crimes. Maybe the bloke can sue her publically - this would remove the anonymity allow justice to be done.
From the telegraph today:
Last month, Mrs Saunders issued new guidelines to police and prosecutors that men accused of rape would have to prove that their alleged victim had consented to sex. This is a reversal of the fundamental tenet of English justice that people are innocent until proven guilty. Even though that remains the case in court, the guidelines will inevitably mean that more men are charged with rape – but will do nothing to improve conviction rates. It is making a statement rather than upholding the rule of law.
The post of DPP is meant to be independent and impartial. Yet, from the prosecution of dozens of journalists for phone hacking, to the pursuit of celebrities for historic sex offences and the prosecution of Dr Dharmasena, Mrs Saunders’ motivation seems more about being seen to do something than ensuring that justice is carried out.
Last month, Mrs Saunders issued new guidelines to police and prosecutors that men accused of rape would have to prove that their alleged victim had consented to sex. This is a reversal of the fundamental tenet of English justice that people are innocent until proven guilty. Even though that remains the case in court, the guidelines will inevitably mean that more men are charged with rape – but will do nothing to improve conviction rates. It is making a statement rather than upholding the rule of law.
The post of DPP is meant to be independent and impartial. Yet, from the prosecution of dozens of journalists for phone hacking, to the pursuit of celebrities for historic sex offences and the prosecution of Dr Dharmasena, Mrs Saunders’ motivation seems more about being seen to do something than ensuring that justice is carried out.
Einion Yrth said:
Looks like a case for Hanlon's razor to me: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence."
Hanlon’s Razor advises, “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.” Heinlein’s Razor states much the same, except adding “but never rule out malice”. I can't see what CPS hoped to gain by this but I'd suggest that incompetence doesn't adequately explain their actions. Somebody had something to prove, perhaps? No idea what that could be.
Rovinghawk said:
I can't see what CPS hoped to gain by this but I'd suggest that incompetence doesn't adequately explain their actions. Somebody had something to prove, perhaps? No idea what that could be.
It appears to be the principle that women should be believed regardless of the available evidence to the contrary ....Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff