What a huge waste of public money
Discussion
Rovinghawk said:
Accepting that no system is infallible, there ought to be some sort of back-up system such as someone actually looking at the evidence & considering it prior to bringing charges, Far-fetched & impractical, I realise, but a guy can dream.....................
Doubtless various people will be along to defend this situation.
I would presume in the CPS a big case like this must get looked at by at least 2 people.Doubtless various people will be along to defend this situation.
Also even if the CPS were under pressure to get cases liek this through even if it was dodgy one woudl think there are only so many losses you can take.
Also if the case was so far fetched one woudl hope the court woudl make a point of it..
Mojooo said:
Rovinghawk said:
Accepting that no system is infallible, there ought to be some sort of back-up system such as someone actually looking at the evidence & considering it prior to bringing charges, Far-fetched & impractical, I realise, but a guy can dream.....................
Doubtless various people will be along to defend this situation.
I would presume in the CPS a big case like this must get looked at by at least 2 people.Doubtless various people will be along to defend this situation.
Also even if the CPS were under pressure to get cases liek this through even if it was dodgy one woudl think there are only so many losses you can take.
Also if the case was so far fetched one woudl hope the court woudl make a point of it..
turbobloke said:
Jasandjules said:
On the face of it this seems preposterous.
But one thing to always bear in mind is that what is reported in the press is not always wholly accurate.........
IF it is as reported however, I would hope that some CPS person would lose their job and this woman will be charged herself.
The video shows this chap with one hand on his rucksack strap and the other holding a newspaper. In every frame iirc. What was used for the penetration in a fraction of a second passing by? As I indicated earlier this would require a very clever dick to accomplish.But one thing to always bear in mind is that what is reported in the press is not always wholly accurate.........
IF it is as reported however, I would hope that some CPS person would lose their job and this woman will be charged herself.
williamp said:
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.
common purpose ,lead beyond authority .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.
williamp said:
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.
It's ludicrous. I had sex with my wife this morning - but how the hell would I 'prove' she consented?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.
Even if you got a signed consent form before the act - a woman can withdrawn consent at any time - so it wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on.
The only way to prove absolutely would be to record the whole intimate act and therefore demonstrate the woman actively participated throughout.......is that really the road we are going down?
williamp said:
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 guidelines did no such thing. They were a reminder for investigators to look at the wider picture and focus on the key areas as they stand in law. How can the 'fundamental tenant of English justice' be reversed without a change in the law the guidelines are discussing?
Here's the summary of the guidance everyone seemingly enjoyed misinterpreting: http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/equality/vaw/wh...
Mojooo said:
Having worked in prosecutions (ofr a council) I find it hard to believe these sorts of outrageous cases make it through. I would side with La Liga in asking how it got that far if it was as one sided as the DM makes out - particularly as the legal system is quite favourable for defendants.
I have to start with, fundamentally, what's more likely? - That there's a false accusation.
- The police investigate the matter and conclude there's sufficient to take the matter to the CPS.
- The CPS disregard their full threshold test and charge anyway.
- The defence do not seek discontinuance prior to the trial.
- The defence do not seek discontinuance during the trial.
- The judge doesn't spot the case isn't justified in going to a jury.
- Various speculative agendas / motives / corruption amongst the above.
Or...
- There's more than the Daily Mail (and other media) is reporting, and equally as importantly, are able to report.
turbobloke said:
Agreed - generalities are no use in examining specifics in any case.
And examining specific cases with a fraction of the details and information used to make a decision is of little to no use to form solid conclusions. La Liga said:
How can the 'fundamental tenant of English justice' be reversed without a change in the law the guidelines are discussing?
In the light of the questionable guidance, via judicial activism. Surely you've heard of it? Just in case
given the apparently nonplussed state of the above post:Judicial activism is when judges substitute their own political opinions for the applicable law, or when judges act like a legislature (legislating from the bench) rather than like a traditional court.
La Liga said:
How can the 'fundamental tenant of English justice' be reversed
You often accuse me of knowing nothing about the law.In this case you are perfectly correct- I don't have a clue what you're talking about.
What exactly is a 'fundamental tenant of English justice'? Dickens' Mr Bumble described the eye of the law as a bachelor but I've never heard justice described as a landlord.
La Liga said:
- There's more than the Daily Mail (and other media) is reporting, and equally as importantly, are able to report.
Possibly the profile of the actress and if they didnt do something they would be hounded as would the alleged perpetrator . They can see how much evidence there is in the video so think best thing is let it go before a court and sort it out once and for allturbobloke said:
La Liga said:
How can the 'fundamental tenant of English justice' be reversed without a change in the law the guidelines are discussing?
In the light of the questionable guidance, via judicial activism. Surely you've heard of it? Just in case
given the apparently nonplussed state of the above post:Judicial activism is when judges substitute their own political opinions for the applicable law, or when judges act like a legislature (legislating from the bench) rather than like a traditional court.
It'd require all the judges to do so in harmony to achieve the fiction written about changing the burden of proof, wouldn't it?
It'd also require all the judges in higher courts to disregard the law since a defendant can appeal to the higher courts based on points of law from the Crown Court.
All sounds rather likely.
Rovinghawk said:
You often accuse me of knowing nothing about the law.
In this case you are perfectly correct- I don't have a clue what you're talking about.
What exactly is a 'fundamental tenant of English justice'? Dickens' Mr Bumble described the eye of the law as a bachelor but I've never heard justice described as a landlord.
The person who I quoted wrote it, ask them. I interpreted it as similar to 'a fundamental principle in law' given the context. In this case you are perfectly correct- I don't have a clue what you're talking about.
What exactly is a 'fundamental tenant of English justice'? Dickens' Mr Bumble described the eye of the law as a bachelor but I've never heard justice described as a landlord.
Very disturbing this got as far as court. In cases such as this surely even the CPS must answer to someone when they get it so wrong. Did they only have the woman's version of events? Did they not see the CCTV like the defence did? How did they hope to convict with no physical evidence and the fact the woman couldn't pick her 'attacker' out in a parade? If it was so obvious that a jury could be unanimous in declaring the defence's innocence, why didn't the CPS foresee this outcome? La Liga states the CPS may well have some other information that persuaded them to continue - but what could that be?
La Liga said:
he person who I quoted wrote it, ask them. I interpreted it as similar to 'a fundamental principle in law' given the context.
Then you misquoted.popeyewhite said:
Then you misquoted.
williamp said:
This is a reversal of the fundamental tenet of English justice that people are innocent until proven guilty.
La Liga said:
How can the 'fundamental tenant of English justice' be reversed without a change in the law the guidelines are discussing?
Are you trying to make some point around him not being the creator of the text? I was wondering why things didn't make sense.
Sometimes you get away with with really fast replies, sometimes you don't...
I can now have 'fun' with SPAG mistakes.
Out of interest could you throw some light on what kind of information you think the CPS might have had which lead them to pursue the case as far as they did?Suspect interview (could be very significant), no forensics to be expected. Other forms of corroboration (reaction of the victim on CCTV, for example). ID parade doesn't seem relevant since he provided an account in interview which appears to be one in which he confirmed he was the person on the CCTV. No victim evidence is really known.
We're hearing the defensive angle on the 1 FPS CCTV and not the prosecution POV. No prosecution quotes or evidence appears to be in the public domain.
What did they do for three days during the trial? Hear from the victim, hear from the accused and watch some low-quality CCTV? Doubtful.
Sometimes you get away with with really fast replies, sometimes you don't...
I can now have 'fun' with SPAG mistakes.
Rovinghawk said:
What exactly is a 'fundamental tenant of English justice'? Dickens' Mr Bumble described the eye of the law as a bachelor but I've never heard justice described as a landlord.
I believe a singular noun requires an extra 's' even when it ends in an 's'. It should be, "Dickins's Mr Bumble". popeyewhite said:
Out of interest could you throw some light on what kind of information you think the CPS might have had which lead them to pursue the case as far as they did?
We're hearing the defensive angle on the 1 FPS CCTV and not the prosecution POV. No prosecution quotes or evidence appears to be in the public domain.
What did they do for three days during the trial? Hear from the victim, hear from the accused and watch some low-quality CCTV? Doubtful.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff