CPS and Celebrity abuse cases

[Mill Wheel]

The CPS northwest's chief prosecutor has denied they are operating a witch hunt against celebrities following concerns at the evidence presented during the case against Michael La Vell.

I tend to agree, as he had already decided to drop the case initially, but was over ruled by the CPS chief prosecuting lawyer - a woman, after complaints by the accusers mother.

Two cases against Coronation Street actors have resulted in not guilty verdicts, and I wonder what the legal experts here thought of the evidence presented, and in the case of Andrew Lancel, the comments by the judge, who seemed to imply that just because the defendant had been found not guilty, did not mean that he had not committed the acts he was accused of!!

[Dwight VanDriver]

I was amazed that CPS ran this case - only one witness and no corroboration so not surprised at the result NG. It could be they knew what the result would be
but ran it in the public interest and to show they are not wholly judge and jury.

But it was never shown that the complainant made false malicious allegations so the jury was faced with one against one.

Only two people know what happened so it could be whilst the flame was extinguised the smoke is still there?

dvd

[Durzel]

Dwight VanDriver said:

Only two people know what happened so it could be whilst the flame was extinguised the smoke is still there?

That's a rather grandiose way of saying "yeah he probably did it".

I think we have to accept that this is the way that the legal system works. He hasn't been proven guilty therefore any opinions we have about him (which are by default going to be less informed than the court) are moot. We should let the guy get on with his life now.

[Derek Smith]

Dwight VanDriver said:

I was amazed that CPS ran this case - only one witness and no corroboration so not surprised at the result NG. It could be they knew what the result would be
but ran it in the public interest and to show they are not wholly judge and jury.

But it was never shown that the complainant made false malicious allegations so the jury was faced with one against one.

Only two people know what happened so it could be whilst the flame was extinguised the smoke is still there?

dvd

My first belief was that there was more to this than just a one against one but as the trial has evolved that does appear to have been it.

There might well have been excluded evidence of course but even then, they must have known it was iffy.

It seemed very strange to opt to go for this one. Is it the end of someone's career?

[sumo69]

No - he is going back onto Corrie according to his statement outside the court.

This case clearly had insufficient evidence to gain a prosecution - why he may have done it, there was no evidence whatsoever other than the victims statement.

David

[Mill Wheel]

Derek Smith said:

Dwight VanDriver said:

I was amazed that CPS ran this case - only one witness and no corroboration so not surprised at the result NG. It could be they knew what the result would be
but ran it in the public interest and to show they are not wholly judge and jury.

But it was never shown that the complainant made false malicious allegations so the jury was faced with one against one.

Only two people know what happened so it could be whilst the flame was extinguised the smoke is still there?

dvd

My first belief was that there was more to this than just a one against one but as the trial has evolved that does appear to have been it.

There might well have been excluded evidence of course but even then, they must have known it was iffy.

It seemed very strange to opt to go for this one. Is it the end of someone's career?

Keir Starmer QC has told MPs that ‘the decision to proceed was the right decision’ when he appeared in front of the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee.

He told them ‘This was a properly brought prosecution according to the proper test.
It would have been wrong not to have taken a case when there was a case to answer.’

Le Vell's relatives and colleagues have condemned the CPS, claiming the case should never have gone to court... (although I have yet to hear any comment from his legal team).
They accused CPS lawyers of leading a vindictive ‘witch-hunt’ against celebrities, in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal.

While Mr Starmer claimed: ‘There is a safeguard within our system, and that is at the end of the prosecution case in court, it is not only open to the judge, it is the duty of the judge, to stop the case if there is no case to answer.
‘That did not happen in this case and therefore there was a case to answer. That case was answered and the jury took some time to consider their verdict – so it was a properly brought case.
The idea that if a case results in an acquittal it shouldn't have been brought is wrong.’

Surely if the evidence was so weak that even lay people question the wisdom of going to court, the argument of "public interest" is at best devalued. I assume the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee were quizzing him on the issue because somebody shared these concerns?

However, the case HAD been already been reviewed by senior CPS lawyers, and their decision was endorsed by Nazir Afzal, the Crown Chief Prosecutor in the North-West, who initially decided not to charge Mr Le Vell in 2011

This decision was overruled by Alison Levitt QC, Mr Starmer’s principal adviser.
Mr Starmer said the original decision was reviewed and overturned after new evidence emerged, and Mr Afzal also denied there was a celebrity witch-hunt under way.
‘We look at the evidence. We follow the evidence. We present the evidence. I am not shy about pursuing these type of cases and will continue to do so.’

IF new evidence arose, then I doubt it was then excluded, and the case allowed to proceed?
It appears to me that Nazir Afzal is being made to become the fall guy for a political decision made by Keir Starmer and Alison Levitt!

[9mm]

Anyone who knows how large organisations work will understand that priorities can change with a nod and a wink and there will be no audit trail. I'm therefore virtually certain no embarrassing emails will surface but there has either been a most deliberate new focus on these types of case or a quite incredible coincedence. I'll go with the former.

[Mill Wheel]

Durzel said:

Dwight VanDriver said:

Only two people know what happened so it could be whilst the flame was extinguised the smoke is still there?

That's a rather grandiose way of saying "yeah he probably did it".

I think we have to accept that this is the way that the legal system works. He hasn't been proven guilty therefore any opinions we have about him (which are by default going to be less informed than the court) are moot. We should let the guy get on with his life now.

The point here is that Le Vell was investigated and given a NFA decision, but then the case was re-opened, removing any doubt in some people's minds that "there is no smoke without fire".

It is about time the general public became aware of the financial incentive to make accusations of historic abuse/rape.
They can receive thousands of pounds from CICA, even if no suspect is found, or if one is not brought to court, or even if a defendant is found not guilty.
Worse still a few blame and claim layers have moved into this potentially lucrative area, and their advertisements underline how easy it is to claim, and how little real evidence is required!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4003/Rape-...
This is just one such case of many that can be found, and this link:
http://www.simpsonmillar.co.uk/services/personalin...
is just one of the many legal advertisements trawling for business (and one of the least smarmy ones) to be found since the Savile story broke.

[pitmansboots]

The CPS guidance was looked at by the NW Chief prosecutor and in his opinion the case didn't meet the test. At a later date the same evidence and the accusers mothers opinion was looked at by another lawyer and a different opinion on the same guidance was reached, this time to prosecute.

There is nothing wrong with that. Where guidance is used to form an opinion the opinions of different people are bound to differ. Here the senior opinion was different to the junior one. Unless the junior opinion was incompetent, there is no suggestion of that, then the junior person making that opinion has done nothing wrong.

When you take a case to court there is always the possibility that the verdict will go against one party in the case...where is the surprise there?

Some cases have the result that can be interpreted as "a guilty person has been found not guilty" some cases have "guilty people being found guilty and they still maintain they are not guilty when they know they are"...etc. etc..

The actor has been found not guilty and that should mean he gets on with his life and career and everyone now accepts that without treating him differently to anyone else. His accuser would find it more difficult of course. For everyone else, we shouldn't consider what he was accused of.

It will be interesting to see if he tries to get some form of compensation but as a public release of his new contract has been made I find it difficult to see how he would look for damaging results.

Leave him and the lawyers be.

[pitmansboots]

Mill Wheel said:

The point here is that Le Vell was investigated and given a NFA decision, but then the case was re-opened, removing any doubt in some people's minds that "there is no smoke without fire".

It is about time the general public became aware of the financial incentive to make accusations of historic abuse/rape.
They can receive thousands of pounds from CICA, even if no suspect is found, or if one is not brought to court, or even if a defendant is found not guilty.
Worse still a few blame and claim layers have moved into this potentially lucrative area, and their advertisements underline how easy it is to claim, and how little real evidence is required!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4003/Rape-...
This is just one such case of many that can be found, and this link:
http://www.simpsonmillar.co.uk/services/personalin...
is just one of the many legal advertisements trawling for business (and one of the least smarmy ones) to be found since the Savile story broke.

Compensation culture is a problem. Perhaps they should put claimants under the same sort of trial as that which Mr. Turner endured. (Le Vell...come on!!,!)

[Devil2575]

pitmansboots said:

The CPS guidance was looked at by the NW Chief prosecutor and in his opinion the case didn't meet the test. At a later date the same evidence and the accusers mothers opinion was looked at by another lawyer and a different opinion on the same guidance was reached, this time to prosecute.

There is nothing wrong with that. Where guidance is used to form an opinion the opinions of different people are bound to differ. Here the senior opinion was different to the junior one. Unless the junior opinion was incompetent, there is no suggestion of that, then the junior person making that opinion has done nothing wrong.

When you take a case to court there is always the possibility that the verdict will go against one party in the case...where is the surprise there?

Some cases have the result that can be interpreted as "a guilty person has been found not guilty" some cases have "guilty people being found guilty and they still maintain they are not guilty when they know they are"...etc. etc..

The actor has been found not guilty and that should mean he gets on with his life and career and everyone now accepts that without treating him differently to anyone else. His accuser would find it more difficult of course. For everyone else, we shouldn't consider what he was accused of.

It will be interesting to see if he tries to get some form of compensation but as a public release of his new contract has been made I find it difficult to see how he would look for damaging results.

Leave him and the lawyers be.

This seems about the most sensible post here.

[anonymous-user]

How is anyone here in a position to judge whether or not the full test was met or not?

[Rovinghawk]

pitmansboots said:

Unless the junior opinion was incompetent, there is no suggestion of that, then the junior person making that opinion has done nothing wrong.

The junior opinion matched that of the judge so was spot on, legally.

[vodkalolly]

This stinks. Alison Levitt clearly has no brains. IMO she should be sacked and her pension given to the victims of her silly witch hunt. The problem with public sector workers is that they can put people through hell because they feel like it, then no consequences. The policy should be sack and scrap.

[pitmansboots]

Devil2575 said:

pitmansboots said:

The CPS guidance was looked at by the NW Chief prosecutor and in his opinion the case didn't meet the test. At a later date the same evidence and the accusers mothers opinion was looked at by another lawyer and a different opinion on the same guidance was reached, this time to prosecute.

There is nothing wrong with that. Where guidance is used to form an opinion the opinions of different people are bound to differ. Here the senior opinion was different to the junior one. Unless the junior opinion was incompetent, there is no suggestion of that, then the junior person making that opinion has done nothing wrong.

When you take a case to court there is always the possibility that the verdict will go against one party in the case...where is the surprise there?

Some cases have the result that can be interpreted as "a guilty person has been found not guilty" some cases have "guilty people being found guilty and they still maintain they are not guilty when they know they are"...etc. etc..

The actor has been found not guilty and that should mean he gets on with his life and career and everyone now accepts that without treating him differently to anyone else. His accuser would find it more difficult of course. For everyone else, we shouldn't consider what he was accused of.

It will be interesting to see if he tries to get some form of compensation but as a public release of his new contract has been made I find it difficult to see how he would look for damaging results.

Leave him and the lawyers be.

This seems about the most sensible post here.

That's very kind of you to say so.

[pitmansboots]

La Liga said:

How is anyone here in a position to judge whether or not the full test was met or not?

Unless the CPS decision makers join up and contribute there is nobody on here that can make that judgement. Anyone who is expressing opinion on whether either of the decisions were right or wrong is simply expressing an unqualified opinion.

Perhaps if you had all of the case materials released to you and became trained in the use of CPS guidance and prosecution legislation you would make some sort of decision in a similar way to the CPS lawyers who are trained to do that and did it twice in this case. At some stage we simply need to accept that those in the position to make the decisions know what they are doing. As I explained the decision is a matter of trained and considered opinion; tow opinions differed and a decision to over-rule was made by a senior lawyer. That isn't wrong; it is exactly why there is a hierarchy in those departments. Saying it's wrong because the court judged against the Crown is ignorant of the process and the legislation. There is nobody to be brought to account in the CPS because of the decision to prosecute because doing that would create a CPS that would simply never prosecute because they were scared of losing.

Those criticizing the decisions of the lawyer who said not to prosecute and the one that said prosecute are ignorant of the procedure and legislation and have simply not thought it through.

Careful consideration and decisions were made, they were in opposition; the case was tried, a not guilty verdict was returned, the end.

It is easy to have a go at these people who have to make responsible decisions so before making public criticism of them have a think what you would do in their position and, most importantly of all, what would you have done when the court didn't agree with you?...or simply put on a clean vest and carry on typing b***cks from your comfy chair.

[pitmansboots]

vodkalolly said:

This stinks. Alison Levitt clearly has no brains. IMO she should be sacked and her pension given to the victims of her silly witch hunt. The problem with public sector workers is that they can put people through hell because they feel like it, then no consequences. The policy should be sack and scrap.

Well her position seems to suggest that she is amply equipped with brains and puts them to good use. The problem with critics of people who have to make decisions of great importance and responsibility is that they tend not to be in the same position perhaps.
There will be written reasons why she made her decision and if ill-considered as you have described she would be open to discipline; I suspect that her reasoning is cogent and justifiable; any personal opinions and "witch hunting" will no doubt not be evidenced.
I don't think you have thought your comments through or are not aware of how her decision has been reached or both.

[pitmansboots]

9mm said:

Anyone who knows how large organisations work will understand that priorities can change with a nod and a wink and there will be no audit trail. I'm therefore virtually certain no embarrassing emails will surface but there has either been a most deliberate new focus on these types of case or a quite incredible coincedence. I'll go with the former.

There most certainly will be.

[agtlaw]

Rovinghawk said:

The junior opinion matched that of the judge so was spot on, legally.

In the Turner case, the judge ruled that there was a case to answer ( or this went unchallenged at half time).

Senior CPS lawyer got it right - and she's been appointed DPP if I'm thinking about the same person

[9mm]

pitmansboots said:

There most certainly will be.

I wouldn't bet on it. You'll struggle to provide a direct written link from Hitler to the Holocaust but I think we know there was one.

Scratch that. There is no written evidence of Hitler ordering the extermination of the Jews.