Another prove your innocence case

[HTP99]

caelite said:

I never understand why ANYONE is named publicly in court cases prior to conviction. I can see so many negatives with very little positives. It always seems to be a case of somebody being accused of being a murdering/raping scumbag, losing their job, connections and reputation, then being proven innocent well after the damage has been done.

Surely it would ensure a fairer justice if naming is entirely held off prior to conviction? The law should be blind of race, sex, or background. The media very much isn't.

The argument is that if the accused has done similar in the past, if they are named then any other potential victims may have the courage to come forward.

I agree though, I think it is ridiculous they are are named before conviction, mud sticks, people have had their lives ruined, lost jobs, family etc to then be found not guilty.

[Moonhawk]

HTP99 said:

The argument is that if the accused has done similar in the past, if they are named then any other potential victims may have the courage to come forward.

I agree though, I think it is ridiculous they are are named before conviction, mud sticks, people have had their lives ruined, lost jobs, family etc to then be found not guilty.

Surely this works both ways though. What if the girl has previous form making unfounded allegations against innocent guys.

[Gameface]

It should be one or the other for both sexes. Named or not named.

It's the discrepancy between male and female treatment in these cases that causes consternation.

[HTP99]

Moonhawk said:

HTP99 said:

The argument is that if the accused has done similar in the past, if they are named then any other potential victims may have the courage to come forward.

I agree though, I think it is ridiculous they are are named before conviction, mud sticks, people have had their lives ruined, lost jobs, family etc to then be found not guilty.

Surely this works both ways though. What if the girl has previous form making unfounded allegations against innocent guys.

But it is argued if the woman is named it could potentially discourage other woman in future reporting rape or sexual abuse crimes against them.

[ukbabz]

Anyone know what happens if he were to name her?

[kowalski655]

djc206 said:

If he was a scumbag in other ways and the police just wanted him put away for something that would make sense but this just appears to the result of staggering incompetence to me. How different could that poor mans future have been if that defence barrister hadn’t followed that route? Poor bloke.

They definitely need to build a case against the false accuser and make sure she spends a serious amount of time in a small room to reflect on her actions.

It was actually the Prosecution barrister that demanded the records as he saw the evidence was missed!
An honourable lawyer doing the right thing...who would have thunk it!

I wonder what his defence team were doing all that time,and he was a criminology student too(obviously not a good one if he missed the defence angle! )
So perhaps there was mention n the papers of the texts that meant it was obvious to a competent prosecutor that something was wrong.

Im sure Ive seen that barrister on HIGNFY or something as he used ot be an MP

[jjohnson23]

ukbabz said:

Anyone know what happens if he were to name her?

Yep,the same s that withheld evidence will chase him down relentlessly.

[Gameface]

A criminology student who didn't tell his brief that she'd been texting him begging for sex and ask him to look into it?

A real loss to the justice system, he is.

[Dr Jekyll]

Scotland yard said:

'We are aware of this case being dismissed from court and are carrying out an urgent assessment to establish the circumstances which led to this action being taken.

'We are working closely with the Crown Prosecution Service and keeping in close contact with the victim whilst this process takes place.'

Which victim would that be?

[anonymous-user]

Gameface said:

A criminology student who didn't tell his brief that she'd been texting him begging for sex and ask him to look into it?

A real loss to the justice system, he is.

Given that his lawyers had repeatedly been refused access to records from the woman’s telephone because police insisted that there was nothing of interest for the prosecution or defence, I'd guess he had told his lawyers exactly this. However for whatever reason the police kept refusing.

Interesting though that they supplied it once the prosecution barrister required it. It will be enlightening to find out why they would supply the evidence to prosecution, but not defence.

[steveatesh]

HTP99 said:

Moonhawk said:

HTP99 said:

The argument is that if the accused has done similar in the past, if they are named then any other potential victims may have the courage to come forward.

I agree though, I think it is ridiculous they are are named before conviction, mud sticks, people have had their lives ruined, lost jobs, family etc to then be found not guilty.

Surely this works both ways though. What if the girl has previous form making unfounded allegations against innocent guys.

But it is argued if the woman is named it could potentially discourage other woman in future reporting rape or sexual abuse crimes against them.

The law currently follows a feminist agenda in that feminists argue that if a woman was to be named as a victim in a sexual assault allegation it would put other women off from reporting. Feminists however don't argue that both offender and victim should be anonymous until a conviction.

This was how that female lawyer caught having sex with another lawyer in public avoided being named, she claimed she had been sexually assaulted - allegedly.

Feminist ideology affects our justice system in other ways, for example the Equal Treatment Bench Book that provided advice and guidance for sentencing means that typically women receive a lighter sentence for the same crime as a man would.

[Gameface]

wsurfa said:

Gameface said:

A criminology student who didn't tell his brief that she'd been texting him begging for sex and ask him to look into it?

A real loss to the justice system, he is.

Given that his lawyers had repeatedly been refused access to records from the woman’s telephone because police insisted that there was nothing of interest for the prosecution or defence, I'd guess he had told his lawyers exactly this. However for whatever reason the police kept refusing.

You may be right. In which case his lawyer didn't do his job. Surely he can demand the police release the texts? They are part of the evidence bundle.

[Gargamel]

Gameface said:

You may be right. In which case his lawyer didn't do his job. Surely he can demand the police release the texts? They are part of the evidence bundle.

Again - they (the defense team) did demand them, several times, but the Police refused to release them.

Prosecution Lawyer sees them and makes them available to the defense team. Now it does sound like the defense team should have been on this far more quickly.

[Gameface]

Gargamel said:

Gameface said:

You may be right. In which case his lawyer didn't do his job. Surely he can demand the police release the texts? They are part of the evidence bundle.

Again - they (the defense team) did demand them, several times, but the Police refused to release them.

Prosecution Lawyer sees them and makes them available to the defense team. Now it does sound like the defense team should have been on this far more quickly.

Any lawyer worth a damn, the minute the police refused to hand them over, should've heard alarm bells ringing and pursued the matter as a priority.

Instead they allowed themselves to be fobbed off with the excuse that "there's nothing of any interest in them" despite his client (presumably) insisting that there was masses of beneficial evidence sufficient to quash the case.

[saaby93]

Gargamel said:

Gameface said:

You may be right. In which case his lawyer didn't do his job. Surely he can demand the police release the texts? They are part of the evidence bundle.

Again - they (the defense team) did demand them, several times, but the Police refused to release them.

Prosecution Lawyer sees them and makes them available to the defense team. Now it does sound like the defense team should have been on this far more quickly.

The Times article is better but may be behind a paywall

It was the replacement Prosecution Lawyer who uncovered what had happened (or not happened) despite the requests of the defence
Remember the defence would unlikely have known what was avilable

Which is where it comes back to the opening post
Even if the prosecution hadnt uncovered this, how much evidence does there need to be to convict someone?
Do you have to prove your innocence ( by luck)
What was there, that was strong enough to convict?

[Dr Jekyll]

Dr Jekyll said:

Scotland yard said:

'We are aware of this case being dismissed from court and are carrying out an urgent assessment to establish the circumstances which led to this action being taken.

'We are working closely with the Crown Prosecution Service and keeping in close contact with the victim whilst this process takes place.'

Which victim would that be?

Am I the only one who thinks this reads as though they think it's the dismissal of the case that's the problem and they are investigating to see why the evidence was released rather than why it was suppressed in the first place?

[anonymous-user]

Disclosure can be a complex area, but the fundamental principle of 'relevance' is pretty simple, and if unsure advice can be sought from the CPS.

Full manual here: https://cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/disclosure-manua...

Disclosure manual said:

1.6. Relevant material is defined in the Code of Practice as anything that appears to an investigator, or the officer in charge of an investigation or the disclosure officer to have some bearing on any offence under investigation or any person being investigated or on the surrounding circumstances unless it is incapable of having any impact on the case.

1.7. Revelation refers to the police alerting the prosecutor to the existence of relevant material that has been retained in the investigation. Revelation to the prosecutor does not mean automatic disclosure to the defence.

In terms of named the accused, the idea is justice is a public matter as we're being judged by our peers. This usually isn't a problem but with sexual offence cases there is a stigma so I wouldn't be against proposals to make the accused anonymous in these cases.

Gameface said:

Any lawyer worth a damn, the minute the police refused to hand them over, should've heard alarm bells ringing and pursued the matter as a priority.

Instead they allowed themselves to be fobbed off with the excuse that "there's nothing of any interest in them" despite his client (presumably) insisting that there was masses of beneficial evidence sufficient to quash the case.

How do you know the defence weren't the cause of the material eventually being disclosed? You don't. They could have made a section 8 (defence applications for further disclosure) application which promoted the prosecutor to look at the material.

[anonymous-user]

According to the Times, the new prosecuting barrister (Jerry Hayes) took over the case the day before the trial and requested the telephone records, which he was given that day. These were passed to the defence barrister (Julia Smart) the evening before she was due to cross examine the accuser.

She spent the night reviewing them, most likely because her client had told her about the messages his accuser had sent him. When she gave details of these in court the next day the trial was halted.

Judge quoted as saying

“There is something that has gone wrong and it is a matter that the CPS, in my judgment, should be considering at the very highest level,” he said. “Otherwise there is a risk not only of this happening again but that the trial process will not detect what has gone wrong and there will be a very serious miscarriage of justice. He [Mr Allan] leaves the courtroom an innocent man without a stain on his character.”

“It seems to me to be a recipe for disaster if material is not viewed by a lawyer,” he said. “Something has gone very, very wrong in the way this case was investigated and brought to court.”.

[ATG]

Dr Jekyll said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Scotland yard said:

'We are aware of this case being dismissed from court and are carrying out an urgent assessment to establish the circumstances which led to this action being taken.

'We are working closely with the Crown Prosecution Service and keeping in close contact with the victim whilst this process takes place.'

Which victim would that be?

Am I the only one who thinks this reads as though they think it's the dismissal of the case that's the problem and they are investigating to see why the evidence was released rather than why it was suppressed in the first place?

That's a bit paranoid. It's exactly the wording you'd expect if they currently haven't got a clue what's going on.

[bstb3]

ATG said:

That's a bit paranoid. It's exactly the wording you'd expect if they currently haven't got a clue what's going on.

I'd be hoping they would be keeping in touch with all parties - the accuser, accused, CPS and the defence team - at this point. Victim isn't an appropriate wording once the case is dismissed, surely?