Absurd injustice

[Martin4x4]

Perhaps some of the resident lawyers could explain/justify this decision, which appears to be an absurd injustice for the victim.

Rape trial collapses as accused James Grant fakes letter from alleged victim

[Martin4x4]

La Liga said:

Which decision?

The abandonment of the first trial? The sentencing? The decision not to go through with a second trial?

The whole thing is a farce, but specifically why abandoned the trial in the first place, it just opens the flood gates to flood gates to defendends sending fake letters and get off with a light sentence.

[Martin4x4]

La Liga said:

Martin4x4 said:

The whole thing is a farce, but specifically why abandoned the trial in the first place

We've not seen the letter or the details details or why it was abandoned. If you were being tried and a significant new piece of evidence emerged in which you and your defence counsel had not seen, you'd want the same.

Martin4x4 said:

it just opens the flood gates to flood gates to defendends sending fake letters and get off with a light sentence.

I'm not sure how keen people will be to obtain 3 x PCOJ convictions and ride their luck that the complainant doesn't want to go to trail with the original offence, somehow.

You realise what he's been sentenced for has nothing to do with the rape allegation, right? And that it wasn't in replacement of it?

He could have found himself with these convictions and subsequent custodial sentence, and a rape conviction and further time in prison had the complainant followed through with her complaint for the second trial.

I do agree the 18 months strikes me as a little too short (not necessarily from a sentencing guideline point of view, but from a moral one).

paranoid airbag said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Red Devil said:

Unfortunately the victim has chosen to withdraw her complaint.

THIS is the important bit.

The CPS can't prosecute without the alleged victim on the stand to say "Yes, he raped me". Innocent until PROVEN guilty, and beyond reasonable doubt, remember?

Entirely true.

Not entirely. If the evidence were there they could prosecute in the absence of a complainant. This occurs in domestic matters on some occasions.

paranoid airbag said:

Nevertheless it illustrates a fairly absurd failing in law, a reverse trial by ordeal. What's the point in such an elaborate legal system that can't deal with this sort of thing?

How do you mean?

The reports say he produced the letter at the trial, so it was not 'unseen' and it seems was proven to be false in the same trial. He's prejudiced himself so I cannot consider it just to still gain a benefit from perverting the justice system. I don't think an innocent person would do this. Which is why I think it is absurd to abandon the trial and drop the charges.

Even so, I understand the victims evidence can still be used against him at another trial even without her testimony. She will already have been cross examined and I think a jury (preferable original but now not possible) should still have been given all the facts to make a verdict on the original charges and the PCOJ sentence added not replace the original sentence.

The 18 months is significantly less than a rapist should expect.

I still think this opens the flood gates for all sorts of abuses to further weaken justice.

Hopefully one of lawyers can enlighten us when the trial report is filed in the system.

--- edits for grammar and clarity ---

Edited by Martin4x4 on Monday 25th August 13:28

[Martin4x4]

Breadvan72 said:

The transcripts of Crown Court trials are not usually published, as they turn on their own facts and publishing reports of every one of them would cost too much.

In this case it is probable that the trial could not proceed because the jury had become aware that the defendant had produced a false exculpatory letter. This prejudiced a fair trial on the rape charge itself.

We cannot simply assume that the defendant was guilty of rape. He may well have been, but sometimes dumb people have a real defence but try to improve on it.

Unfortunatly, but it does under line a significant grievance I have with the criminal justice sytem. It seems incapably of trusting juries with all the evidence, often seeing fit to witholding facts because the 'plebs' cannot be trusted to make the right decisions. infantilise juries and we get whimsical decisions.

[Martin4x4]

La Liga said:

Why do you assume he received a benefit? Why have you failed to consider that he never have been convicted of the rape, and the only convictions and prison time he spent was his own-doing? That could easily be the case.

I would consider that self evident, 18 months for PCOJ vs several years in jail as hated sex offender. I doubt that he would fake the letter if innocent, I consider that an unreasonable doubt.

Martin4x4 said:

I userstand the victims evidence can still be used against him which is why I think it is absurd to abandon the trial and drop the charges.

I accidently posted before I had finished my copy edit and I reworded this in my OP to better express what I meant.

La Liga said:

You obviously have no idea of the evidential strength of the case unless you've read the prosecution file. There may have been (and probably wasn't given the discontinuance) no realistic prospect of conviction in the absence of the complainant. It's hardly absurd to stick to consistent legal principles, is it?

You are right, which is why I think Juries should get the full facts to be able to make their decisions.

Martin4x4 said:

This opens the flood gates for all sorts of abuses to further weaken justice.

That's a 'thin end of the wedge' fallacy comment, if I ever heard one.

I fundamentally disagree it is no fallacy. The 'slippery slope' occurs in all walks of life again and again.

[Martin4x4]

SamHH said:

You have said that, because he sent those letters, you think the defendant was guilty of rape. That seems to me like a good demonstration of why juries are not "trust[ed]...with all the evidence".

No, A does follow B. I think he is likely to be guilty and likely to be found guilty for my reasons stated, but the final decision should be in the hands of a jury that has heard the full facts as possible.