What a huge waste of public money
Discussion
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3435317/Tr...
Elderly actress, who can't be named, claims she was penetrativly sexually assaulted in the middle of a busy train station over a matter of seconds (while wearing trousers), and turns out to be lying.
The main issue is though, why didn't the police access the CCTV footage as the defence lawyers did, and if they didn't before presenting the case to the CPS why didn't the CPS ask them to.
This poor chap, who was minding his own business, ends up in 18 months of hell because of a loony lovey. I hope he can get some compensation for this farce and the woman is charged with wasting police time.
Elderly actress, who can't be named, claims she was penetrativly sexually assaulted in the middle of a busy train station over a matter of seconds (while wearing trousers), and turns out to be lying.
The main issue is though, why didn't the police access the CCTV footage as the defence lawyers did, and if they didn't before presenting the case to the CPS why didn't the CPS ask them to.
This poor chap, who was minding his own business, ends up in 18 months of hell because of a loony lovey. I hope he can get some compensation for this farce and the woman is charged with wasting police time.
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?
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.
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?
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 ....b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: If you play a video @ 2fps instead of 1fps aren't you speed it up rather than slowing it down? 
I was think that too.But whichever way, the CPS did not present it as evidence for the prosecution. Why not? Obviously because it was not beneficial to their case. So their case appears to centre totally on the alleged victims claim that she was assaulted even though the CCTV evidence clearly showed he claim was very very unlikely to be true.
The whole thing stinks.
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.
TTwiggy said:
This case went to trial. It went all the way to a jury decision. He was found not guilty. I don't think that proves that no offence took place.
I'm not arguing this from a moral POV by the way, simply from the legal facts as they are known.
Your attitude is illustrates perfectly why anonymity should prevail for anyone accused unless they are found guilty.I'm not arguing this from a moral POV by the way, simply from the legal facts as they are known.
cirian75 said:
and it seems the higher ups have finally realised something is wrong with the way the Police/CPS is behaving with sex case too.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35538655
Oh excellent!http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35538655
That will probably take 5 years, cost £5M, and achieve bugger all.
La Liga said:
Since when does the presumption of believing a complainant upon the first encounter affect the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? They're obviously separate thoughts and considerations you're blurring into one to make an unfounded point.
If you read the article he wrote (where does it mention guidelines?), he directly quotes the HMIC who are responsible for shaping policing: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/10/met...
I don't understand that.If you read the article he wrote (where does it mention guidelines?), he directly quotes the HMIC who are responsible for shaping policing: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/10/met...
HMIC said:
In 2014, Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary said: “The presumption that a victim should always be believed should be institutionalised.” A complaint of sexual abuse must now be recorded immediately as a crime.
If you believe the victim is truthful you must believe the incident occurred and you must believe the perpetrator is guilty. So any investigation will be for the sole purpose of gathering evidence to prove guilt, and any evidence that prove innocence discarded.
And to be frank, that appears to be exactly what has happened in the case this thread is about.
La Liga said:
It's about someone presenting themselves in the first instance and being treated as if they are a victim of crime in order to gather the best evidence. It has no bearing on how the investigation evolves and where the evidence takes the matter.
Nearly all victims are treated this way.
Well that is not my personal experience. But perhaps that is because I am the wrong gender to be believed.Nearly all victims are treated this way.
Bigends said:
Rapes are recorded immediately whether third or first party reports - new classifications have been created to cover all eventualities to ensure prompt and accurate recording
Out of interest does a 'crime' get removed from the statistics if they are later found to be a complete fabrication of the 'victim'?Bigends said:
If theres additional VERIFIABLE information that no offence occcured the report can be cancelled though physically remains on the system.This must be new information not known at the time of report.
In the case of Rape it must be established beyond any doubt in addition to the above that no offence occured - very rarely removed and only authorised by Dep Chief Constable level.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics ......In the case of Rape it must be established beyond any doubt in addition to the above that no offence occured - very rarely removed and only authorised by Dep Chief Constable level.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff