Justice? Who pays now?

[Don]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/3826693.stm

bbc web site said:

Computer expert cleared of rape A computer expert wrongly jailed for the rape and abduction of a schoolgirl has been cleared after DNA evidence emerged implicating another man. Sean Mitchell, 23, of Ilford, Essex, was jailed for 14 years at Chelmsford Crown Court in 2001 for attacking a 16-year-old girl in Woodford in 2000. DNA evidence links a "third party" with the sex attack, Lord Justice Rix said. Mr Mitchell had "always been innocent of the charges on which he was convicted", he added. 'Strong' evidence The only other evidence linking Mr Mitchell to the attack was testimony from a "street witness" who claimed to have seen him walking alongside his alleged victim during her two-hour ordeal. The victim was unable to identify her attacker as he was hooded. Other witnesses came forward, but none of them picked out Mr Mitchell as the rapist, the court heard. Lord Justice Rix - sitting with Mr Justice Forbes and Judge Brian Barker QC - said the new evidence for a third party match was "extremely strong". He told the court: "This evidence is not only material for a successful ground of appeal, but also demonstrates that the appellant is, and always has been, innocent of the charges". Mr Mitchell was convicted of rape, kidnap and three counts of indecent assault. Two-hour ordeal The victim was snatched by her attacker from the driveway of her family home and forced through the streets of Woodford and Buckhurst Hill for two-hours which ended in her being raped on woodland. At the trial there was no DNA evidence linking Mr Mitchell with the crime, but the DNA of a man was found. Scientific evidence could not eliminate the possibility that the DNA might have been transferred "innocently", and not via an unknown attacker. Lord Justice Rix said the trial judge had suggested the jury should regard this as "neutral" evidence, but he should have asked the jury to "weigh it in the scales against the prosecution evidence". The new evidence of a match to the mystery DNA only came to light after Mr Mitchell was granted permission to appeal. An "enhanced" DNA testing procedure then threw up the "extremely strong match" with another man, he added. On Monday, Mr Mitchell was cleared and freed. An Essex Police spokeswoman said in the light of the new evidence, the case was being reviewed and the force's original investigation would be reviewed by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Essex Police said there was another suspect for the offence

I am shocked that it was possible for an innocent man to be jailed. What were the jurors thinking! Was there reasonable doubt? Sure after two hours in the Company of an evil bastard the poor lass would have been able to identify the attacker positively...and surely must have known the guy in the dock wasn't him? And if so - what on earth possessed her to help convict an innocent man?

The crime is unspeakable.

Therefore false accusations and convictions of the crime are worse.

Someone here is guilty of knowingly sending an innocent man to jail.

They must be punsihed lest they start to think they can get away with it...

[Streetcop]

Isn't this a MOTORING and law discussion forum?

???

I think it is...Go and write to your MP about it instead.

[towman]

It could be a simple error officer - perhaps Don meant to post on the "general Gassing" thread and ended up on SPL by mistake.

[Streetcop]

Mmmmmmmm

[streaky]

Well, the title of this Forum is "Speed, Plod & the Law". This does not indicate that it is exclusively about motoring law.

If it is intended to be so exclusive, then the title should reflect this.

In fact, if you were to interpret the contents as being confined to the title, then you might limit it to discussion of the law relating to speeding police officers.

With just a little more liberty, you could include discussion of speeding in general, but not widen it to include "motoring".

I could go on, but will refrain.

As it is, there have been posts here on a number of motoring "offences" and also on non-motoring legal issues.

I ask for Ted's ruling on this.

Streaky