is it illegal for police to tell press of a raid etc?

[Variomatic]

Not at all. Gatherng evidence isn't the business of the person reporting a crime. That's the job of the Police. If they can't find evidence to support what's reported then it should go no further.

But that doesn't stop you reporting it in the first place. Been there, done that, the bloke who put a glass in my throat in a busy cafe walked away because nobody saw nuffin and he swore that I swung at him and he put his hand (which happened to have a glass in it) up to protect himself.

Because nobody saw nuffin, that was absolutely the right outcome.

[pork911]

Variomatic said:

pork911 said:

You totally miss the point. Though you still don't realise it, you are arguing against many convictions for recent offences.

No I don't miss the point, and yes I would argue against any recent convictions based on one word against another with nothing else to support eiher side. Not only that, the more serious the allegation the more vociferously I'd argue against it because:

(a) serious allegations are more likely to illicit sympathy for the accuser from Joe and Jane Public, and

(b) The effect of an incorrect guily verdit is far higher for an accusation of child buggery than it is for shoplifting. Even if it's later overturned, one fo those verdicts will never go away and might even put the (falsely) accused at risk of harm.

Imagine I say that Pork stole my bike (for which I have no receipt, photos of me riding it, or family members who remember seeing me with it) and you say that you didn't*.

It just so happens that the jury prefer my swarhy Mediterranian looks to your blonde Nordic charm so choose to believe me over you. According to your position, you should be happy with being convicted!

• strictly off the record, the reason for no receipt, photos or family memories is because I haven't actually owned a bike for the past 15 years. But you really pissed me off once even if you don't remember!

Oh if only life were so clear cut.

Have you ever sat through the whole of a single criminal trial?

Conviction rates would plummet but you'd presumably be happy as any higher than the reset rate would offend your demand for Some fantasy CSI.

[Variomatic]

pork911 said:

Oh if only life were so clear cut.

Have you ever sat through the whole of a single criminal trial?

Conviction rates would plummet but you'd presumably be happy as any higher than the reset rate would offend your demand for Some fantasy CSI.

I have no idea where you get my "demand for some fantasy CSI" from. It's your prerogative to read what you will into my posts but I certainly don't recall ever saying that convictions couldn't, or shouldn't, happen without some while-U-wait DNA or conveniently distinctive footprint in the blood.

Witness or victim statements can, of course, be corroboraed by things other than hard physical evidence. My entire point is that, as allegations become more serious, justice requires that corroboration to be far more substantial than it should be for, say, a parking ticket.

As time passes in silence after an alleged offence, such corroboration becomes naturally more difficult to obtain. It may well come in the form of similar complains from other people, bu those complaints are unlikely to surface until the accused is spead all over the news (as has happened in many recent cases).

At that point, if the accused is not guilty (as has transired in several recen cases) the harm is already done. He is already publicly branded, his career harmed if not destroyed, and poenially the arget for any peadiatrician burning nutjob out there.

I accept that your job may be concerned with taking peoples' words and mangling them into things that were never said but, I would hope, that your logical and analytical abilities are sufficiently developed to have idenified those dangers without them being laid out on a plate for you.

If I misjudged you then I apologise.

Edited by Variomatic on Tuesday 19th August 06:53

[pork911]

So what are you saying? Allegations of historic sexual offences should pass greater tests for charges to be brought, a conviction for these should require a higher standard of proof and or anyone accused of such offences should have anonymity?

I'm troubled by selective anonymity after charge for certain offences. It weakens central principles of innocence and any reason for wanting it equally applies to other offences that no one suggests.


As to the other matters I'm still at a loss to understand what difference the age of an offence makes in your mind such that recent offences missing some similar 'corroboration' you infer (but don't spell out) are ok.

[Variomatic]

pork911 said:

So what are you saying? Allegations of historic sexual offences should pass greater tests for charges to be brought, a conviction for these should require a higher standard of proof and or anyone accused of such offences should have anonymity?

No, the standard of proof should be the same - "beyond reasonable doubt".

What I am saying is that uncorroboraed testimony regarding historic events can't carry the same weight in establishing that proof as the same testimony of a recent event. The reason for that assertion is entirely logical: the historic testimony is much harder, if not impossible, to challenge wih other evidence than the same statements made about a recent event.

Let's aay I walk into my local police station this evening, walk up to the counter, and say "pork911 raped me an hour ago". If true, there will almost certainly be physical evidence of the rape. If false, there will be none. You will also be able to establish that you were at work as normal today and couldn't possibly have got to Anglesey and buggered me because I'd been too stroppy on PH.

Now, if I walk in and say "pork911 raped me in 1992" there will be no physical evidence either way and the chance of you being able to establish an alibi is remoe at best. Especially if you happen o be famous enough that I can identify where you were on a certain date in 1992 and build my story round that.

I'll get to anonymiy next.

pork911 said:

I'm troubled by selective anonymity after charge for certain offences. It weakens central principles of innocence and any reason for wanting it equally applies to other offences that no one suggests.

I would also be seriously troubled by selective anonymity. What I would want to see is an assumption of anonymity in all criminal cases before conviction unless either a judge rules it should be lifted in the public interest (such as trawling for other complainants) or the defendant chooses to waive it.

Once upon a ime, if you were accused and aquitted, you could move to the next village and start again with no shadow over you. Now that news of investigaions spreads so far and so fast, anything less than assumed anonymity risks unacceptable harm.

pork911 said:

As to the other matters I'm still at a loss to understand what difference the age of an offence makes in your mind such that recent offences missing some similar 'corroboration' you infer (but don't spell out) are ok.

Hopefully the first part of my answer will have helped you with this bit. Simply, it's far easier to discredit a false accusation of a recent event than it is for a historic one.

That's fully accepted in the case of minor crimes, which is why NIPs for speeding have to be served promptly - leave i too long and it's accepted that your chance of mounting a defence is weakened. It should apply tenfold in more serious accusations (and especially in Burn The Paediatrician cases) because the potential harm to an innocent defendant is immeasurably greater.

[anonymous-user]

Variomatic said:

Simply, it's far easier to discredit a false accusation of a recent event than it is for a historic one.

I disagree. It's harder to prove an older offence (generally) than a recent one, especially since forensic evidence is often so relevant in sexual offending.

[pork911]

Variomatic said:

pork911 said:

So what are you saying? Allegations of historic sexual offences should pass greater tests for charges to be brought, a conviction for these should require a higher standard of proof and or anyone accused of such offences should have anonymity?

No, the standard of proof should be the same - "beyond reasonable doubt".

What I am saying is that uncorroboraed testimony regarding historic events can't carry the same weight in establishing that proof as the same testimony of a recent event. The reason for that assertion is entirely logical: the historic testimony is much harder, if not impossible, to challenge wih other evidence than the same statements made about a recent event.

Let's aay I walk into my local police station this evening, walk up to the counter, and say "pork911 raped me an hour ago". If true, there will almost certainly be physical evidence of the rape. If false, there will be none. You will also be able to establish that you were at work as normal today and couldn't possibly have got to Anglesey and buggered me because I'd been too stroppy on PH.

Now, if I walk in and say "pork911 raped me in 1992" there will be no physical evidence either way and the chance of you being able to establish an alibi is remoe at best. Especially if you happen o be famous enough that I can identify where you were on a certain date in 1992 and build my story round that.

I'll get to anonymiy next.

pork911 said:

I'm troubled by selective anonymity after charge for certain offences. It weakens central principles of innocence and any reason for wanting it equally applies to other offences that no one suggests.

I would also be seriously troubled by selective anonymity. What I would want to see is an assumption of anonymity in all criminal cases before conviction unless either a judge rules it should be lifted in the public interest (such as trawling for other complainants) or the defendant chooses to waive it.

Once upon a ime, if you were accused and aquitted, you could move to the next village and start again with no shadow over you. Now that news of investigaions spreads so far and so fast, anything less than assumed anonymity risks unacceptable harm.

pork911 said:

As to the other matters I'm still at a loss to understand what difference the age of an offence makes in your mind such that recent offences missing some similar 'corroboration' you infer (but don't spell out) are ok.

Hopefully the first part of my answer will have helped you with this bit. Simply, it's far easier to discredit a false accusation of a recent event than it is for a historic one.

That's fully accepted in the case of minor crimes, which is why NIPs for speeding have to be served promptly - leave i too long and it's accepted that your chance of mounting a defence is weakened. It should apply tenfold in more serious accusations (and especially in Burn The Paediatrician cases) because the potential harm to an innocent defendant is immeasurably greater.

You seem confused as to the burden of proof and seem to want the crown to only consider easy questions.

Anonymity for all? Interesting but how would that work in practice exactly? Huge issues associated with that.

The seriousness and very nature of sexual offences are such that limitation (if any) should be the longest. You choose a speeding offence (victim-less) and talk of the Defendant's ability to mount a Defence, forgetting the alleged victim, the seriousness of the alleged offence and again the burden of proof, as well as the need to prosecute such offences and not provide a charter for sexual offenders.

[Variomatic]

pork911 said:

You seem confused as to the burden of proof and seem to want the crown to only consider easy questions.

Anonymity for all? Interesting but how would that work in practice exactly? Huge issues associated with that.

The seriousness and very nature of sexual offences are such that limitation (if any) should be the longest. You choose a speeding offence (victim-less) and talk of the Defendant's ability to mount a Defence, forgetting the alleged victim, the seriousness of the alleged offence and again the burden of proof, as well as the need to prosecute such offences and not provide a charter for sexual offenders.

How am I confused about the burden of proof?

As far as I'm aware, except in certain cases involving statutory defences to absolute offences, it's for the prosecution to show guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Even in those cases, they have to show that the offence acually occurred and, if a prima facie defence is mounted, they have the same burden to refute it.

But in practice, especially with sexual offences, once someone is accused they're guily in the eyes of a vast, if not majority, section of the population.

I know I keep using it in passing, but is a sociey that burns the house of a self-proclaimed paediatrician really fit to be weighing the word of the poor abused man agains that of the evil pervert accused of abusing him?

Hell, I'm even guily of it myself. My first thought when the news about Mr Richard came out was "yep, I can see that fit with his loudly declared celibacy and even louder God bothering".

Given that I'm vehement and (I hope) reasonably lucid in my opinions on this, if I can find myself making such a baseless connection how many potential jurors out there will do the same?

And how many of those will be "thinking of the victim" as they make their verdict forgeting that, until their verdict, he / she is only an alleged victim? Which introduces a dangerously circular logic to the outcome.

I remind you again of Blackstone. In essence, the law's greatest challenge is to protect the innocent against the law itself as the priority, while doing what it can about the guilty within that constraint.

Anything less is fit only for the sort of regimes we've been making a habit of invading recently.

[pork911]

Variomatic said:

pork911 said:

You seem confused as to the burden of proof and seem to want the crown to only consider easy questions.

Anonymity for all? Interesting but how would that work in practice exactly? Huge issues associated with that.

The seriousness and very nature of sexual offences are such that limitation (if any) should be the longest. You choose a speeding offence (victim-less) and talk of the Defendant's ability to mount a Defence, forgetting the alleged victim, the seriousness of the alleged offence and again the burden of proof, as well as the need to prosecute such offences and not provide a charter for sexual offenders.

How am I confused about the burden of proof?

As far as I'm aware, except in certain cases involving statutory defences to absolute offences, it's for the prosecution to show guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Even in those cases, they have to show that the offence acually occurred and, if a prima facie defence is mounted, they have the same burden to refute it.

But in practice, especially with sexual offences, once someone is accused they're guily in the eyes of a vast, if not majority, section of the population.

I know I keep using it in passing, but is a sociey that burns the house of a self-proclaimed paediatrician really fit to be weighing the word of the poor abused man agains that of the evil pervert accused of abusing him?

Hell, I'm even guily of it myself. My first thought when the news about Mr Richard came out was "yep, I can see that fit with his loudly declared celibacy and even louder God bothering".

Given that I'm vehement and (I hope) reasonably lucid in my opinions on this, if I can find myself making such a baseless connection how many potential jurors out there will do the same?

And how many of those will be "thinking of the victim" as they make their verdict forgeting that, until their verdict, he / she is only an alleged victim? Which introduces a dangerously circular logic to the outcome.

I remind you again of Blackstone. In essence, the law's greatest challenge is to protect the innocent against the law itself as the priority, while doing what it can about the guilty within that constraint.

Anything less is fit only for the sort of regimes we've been making a habit of invading recently.

'anything less...'..and yet you inferred secret trials?


anyway, (legal) Guilt is more important than guilt ascribed to someone by some members of the public - and re-educating idiots on what the status of the Accused is and what a Not Guilty verdict is won't be helped by your varied and confused proposals


anyway, i'm glad you haven't entirely flipped the burden in your mind but that really leaves me at a loss to understand what you've said about accusations regarding historic offences

[Variomatic]

pork911 said:

anyway, i'm glad you haven't entirely flipped the burden in your mind but that really leaves me at a loss to understand what you've said about accusations regarding historic offences

Well, since you appear to be (deliberately?) incapable of following even when I thought I was spelling it out such that a schoolboy could follow and, instead of actually debating my concerns, choose to make vague hand-wavings about risks and dangers (without actually specifying either, which I have done repeatedly for my viewpoint), I'm afraid I shall have to leave you at that loss. Horses and water spring to mind.

[tenpenceshort]

pork911 said:

I'm troubled by selective anonymity after charge for certain offences. It weakens central principles of innocence and any reason for wanting it equally applies to other offences that no one suggests.


As to the other matters I'm still at a loss to understand what difference the age of an offence makes in your mind such that recent offences missing some similar 'corroboration' you infer (but don't spell out) are ok.

You perhaps ought to bear in mind there is anonymity for complainants in certain offences (including sexual ones). I think what people naturally seek is equality. If the complainant qualifies for anonymity then so should the accused or, if the accused must be named, so should the accuser.

One of the difficulties in prosecuting sexual offences is that, perhaps disproportionately compared to many other crimes, accusations are sometimes partially or purely malicious. The malicious accuser can sully the good name of the accused without themselves being publicly associated with it. Does this act as an encouragement to malicious allegations? It's arguable that it does.

Personally I would prefer that all parties in prosecutions involving adults are fully in the public eye.

[Variomatic]

pork911 said:

anyway, (legal) Guilt is more important than guilt ascribed to someone by some members of the public

I can only assume you've never known anyone accused of a sexual offence? We used to have one down the street and the not guilty verdict was scant comfort against the graffiti, vandalised car and threats he suffered. No to menion the trouble his primary school aged child had at the hands of other children because of "what her dad was"

They've moved away now and, I hope, won't have been followed by the stigma. But that's not an option when your name and face are famous, or have been plasered over the national news.

[anonymous-user]

The benefit of publicity in high-profile cases is more people may come forward.

This is off-set by the stigma for the famous and non-famous.

There should be anonymity for the accused as people in general can't be trusted to behave in an appropriate manner when they are aware that someone has been accused of a sexual offence.

[Thorodin]

Heck, it's difficult to resist! We have lawyers defending the existing law (well they would wouldn't they). Deliberately and repeatedly selecting out of context quotes of others to divert attention from a failing argument (please don't risk another diversion by asking for examples - they are plain enough to see). Denying basic tenets of law that have stood examination for 300 years (Blackstone) because it suits a modish aberration due almost entirely to a desire to prolong opinion-giving (exactly what many people accuse them of).

On the other hand non-learned observers who put forward lucid, well reasoned (I do not include myself) alternatives are seen as reactionary idiots who have no business being anywhere near an opinion. The apparent conviction (no pun) among lawyers that the public are morons who don't deserve to be listened to for fear of not understanding finer points is disgusting. A really good dose of non-Uriah Heep humility would do the patient remarkable benefit.

[anonymous-user]

Having read Blackstone rather than just having read about him I don't recall him arguing that serious crimes should have limitation periods or require special evidential rules, but it's been a while since I read the Commentaries, so I may recall incorrectly.

I criticise extant laws if they seem to me unfair or unworkable, but permitting an old complaint to go to trial and not demanding evidence additional to that of the complainant is not inconsistent with the idea of preferring false acquittals to false convictions. Criminal procedural law, reinforced by article 6 ECHR, provides safeguards against abuse of process and unfairness. Old complaints should be subject to careful scrutiny, and many never reach trial, but it is not inherently impossible to hold a fair trial of an old complaint.

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 20th August 14:09

[Steffan]

Breadvan72 said:

Having read Blackstone rather than just having read about him I don't recall him arguing that serious crimes should have limitation periods or require special evidential rules, but it's been a while since I read the Commentaries, so I may recall incorrectly.

I criticise extant laws if they seem to me unfair or unworkable, but permitting an old complaint to go to trial and not demanding evidence additional to that of the complainant is not inconsistent with the idea of preferring false acquittals to false convictions. Criminal procedural law, reinforced by article 6 ECHR, provides safeguards against abuse of process and unfairness. Old complaints should be subject to careful scrutiny, and many never reach trial, but it is not inherently impossible to hold a fair trial of an old complaint.

Edited by Breadvan72 on Wednesday 20th August 14:09

I think the convictions on all counts of Harris and Cliiford trials and the acquittal on all counts in the Roach and Le Veil trials clearly demonstrated that Juries can disguise between the genuine cases and the less than genuine cases. I have concerns about such historic prosecutions but these two sets of results do suggest to me that the Justice system is coping.

There has to be a balance of the risk of very old crimes being wrongly prosectuted and fading memories being suspect and the dreadful events thatvare being repoerted by the abused. The dreadful circumstances of the alleged crimes and the effects of there not being a prosecution on the accusers, who could well see this as a completely unfair decision and never see their supposed abusers punished, and never achieve any sense of being supported through their difficulties, could be quite unfair.

On balance, having initially had serious concerns personally, about these very old crimes being effectively and fairly prosecuted it does seem to me that the four trials above clearly show this is working. Indeed it seems to me working very fairly and correctly.

However I do think that the disgraceful process by which all of the media circus were fully aware of the Cliff Richard raid, and had helicopters flying overhead was a disgrace and immediate action should be taken against this disgrace. Regrettably just as the NofW trial and the collapse of the NOfW itself has had no real effect upon the efficacy of the pathetic (still) Press Complaints Procedures, I am not expecting a result.

What concerns me is that if all the Media knew what was happening there must be a good chance that a friendly journalist tipped of Cliff Richard. Not good at all. It begs the question as to how the Press can be effectively be controlled and still provide an effective method of redress against the press barons and their minions. Apparently it cannot be effectively controlled. This mess is post the new supposed strengthened Press Complaints Commission. So much for the efficacy of that. Another whitewash job I fear.

[pork911]

tenpenceshort said:

pork911 said:

I'm troubled by selective anonymity after charge for certain offences. It weakens central principles of innocence and any reason for wanting it equally applies to other offences that no one suggests.


As to the other matters I'm still at a loss to understand what difference the age of an offence makes in your mind such that recent offences missing some similar 'corroboration' you infer (but don't spell out) are ok.

You perhaps ought to bear in mind there is anonymity for complainants in certain offences (including sexual ones). I think what people naturally seek is equality. If the complainant qualifies for anonymity then so should the accused or, if the accused must be named, so should the accuser.

One of the difficulties in prosecuting sexual offences is that, perhaps disproportionately compared to many other crimes, accusations are sometimes partially or purely malicious. The malicious accuser can sully the good name of the accused without themselves being publicly associated with it. Does this act as an encouragement to malicious allegations? It's arguable that it does.

Personally I would prefer that all parties in prosecutions involving adults are fully in the public eye.

thread based so you missed that selective anonymity referred to defendants (no mention of complainants)

[pork911]

Variomatic said:

pork911 said:

anyway, (legal) Guilt is more important than guilt ascribed to someone by some members of the public

I can only assume you've never known anyone accused of a sexual offence? We used to have one down the street and the not guilty verdict was scant comfort against the graffiti, vandalised car and threats he suffered. No to menion the trouble his primary school aged child had at the hands of other children because of "what her dad was"

They've moved away now and, I hope, won't have been followed by the stigma. But that's not an option when your name and face are famous, or have been plasered over the national news.

wrong assumption, known and dealt with personally and professionally

[pork911]

Variomatic said:

pork911 said:

anyway, i'm glad you haven't entirely flipped the burden in your mind but that really leaves me at a loss to understand what you've said about accusations regarding historic offences

Well, since you appear to be (deliberately?) incapable of following even when I thought I was spelling it out such that a schoolboy could follow and, instead of actually debating my concerns, choose to make vague hand-wavings about risks and dangers (without actually specifying either, which I have done repeatedly for my viewpoint), I'm afraid I shall have to leave you at that loss. Horses and water spring to mind.

you'd have to indicate your concerns in a non-confused manner first - difficult to 'debate' with someone who is consistent only in their incoherence

[Variomatic]

Hands up anyone apart from our allegedly learned friend who's had trouble following my train of thought and my direct answers to each of his points over the last several pages?