Another prove your innocence case
Discussion
richie99 said:
..............
If there are no prosecutions of the lying complainants in some of these cases it will be a disgrace. Hopefully the victims will consider civil cases for damages.
If Civil cases did ensue I wonder how the question of anonymity for the original accuser would figure. Also, the same with conspiring to pervert.... If there are no prosecutions of the lying complainants in some of these cases it will be a disgrace. Hopefully the victims will consider civil cases for damages.
Thorodin said:
If Civil cases did ensue I wonder how the question of anonymity for the original accuser would figure. Also, the same with conspiring to pervert....
I’m not sure why they still have anonymity anyway..They have that as victims of sex crimes well they arnt victims of sex crimes so name them.
I can't imagine they would.
They wouldn't during a private criminal prosecution as was seen here: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/09/dpp-de...
Interesting for those who have classed Saunders as having a 'feminist agenda' etc defending the decision for the CPS to continue to prosecute / take over the private prosecution.
They wouldn't during a private criminal prosecution as was seen here: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/09/dpp-de...
Interesting for those who have classed Saunders as having a 'feminist agenda' etc defending the decision for the CPS to continue to prosecute / take over the private prosecution.
Another one http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5228943/CP...
Mail said:
Following the verdict, the judge, Mr Recorder Michael Bromley-Martin QC, ordered an inquiry into why no witnesses were available to be called on the first day.
He also ordered a similar probe into the reasons behind the 'reprehensible' late service of footage.
He also ordered a similar probe into the reasons behind the 'reprehensible' late service of footage.
La Liga said:
I can't imagine they would.
They wouldn't during a private criminal prosecution as was seen here: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/09/dpp-de...
Interesting for those who have classed Saunders as having a 'feminist agenda' etc defending the decision for the CPS to continue to prosecute / take over the private prosecution.
Have to say from the article looks like she had no choice. It’s worth noting that neither the police nor the CPS initiated th prosecution, it was down to the man who had been accused. They wouldn't during a private criminal prosecution as was seen here: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/09/dpp-de...
Interesting for those who have classed Saunders as having a 'feminist agenda' etc defending the decision for the CPS to continue to prosecute / take over the private prosecution.
Why is that the case when there was apparently a strong case and it was in the public interest to prosecute her?
steveatesh said:
Have to say from the article looks like she had no choice. It’s worth noting that neither the police nor the CPS initiated the prosecution, it was down to the man who had been accused.
Why is that the case when there was apparently a strong case and it was in the public interest to prosecute her?
I don't think there's any blame with the CPS. Why is that the case when there was apparently a strong case and it was in the public interest to prosecute her?
I think the police officers involved basically weren't interested once Alexander Economou (the man de Freitas accused) was released due to a lack of evidence. Fortunately for him he had the means to pay for private investigators and instigate a private prosecution, which isn't how it should work.
He's actually got a blog and the two officers involved are apparently facing a misconduct hearing, although I can find no details on the Met's site: http://www.accused.blog/
saaby93 said:
richie99 said:
Thorodin said:
The issue here is surely the authorities, in this case the investigating police, had the evidence at their disposal and a basic routine of examination of it either was or was not followed to establish 'the whole truth'. If that routine was not followed the police were negligent in their investigation and therefore should be held culpable in a miscarriage of justice and if it was followed they were prejudiced in the investigation. The focus here should not be on the CPS as they were presumably unaware of the mitigation. Another reason for a totally independent examination of all evidence following a charge and before prosecution.
As to what you say about 'how far' the investigation should go is relatively simple - thoroughly ie all available evidence.
They didn’t even have to go looking for it. The police had apparently seized his technology (thus making it hard for him to prove the woman was conspiring to pervert the course of justice). They either looked and decided they didn’t like the way it looked which makes the police co-conspirators, or they didn’t bother, which is, at the very least, gross negligence. As to what you say about 'how far' the investigation should go is relatively simple - thoroughly ie all available evidence.
Edited by Thorodin on Tuesday 2nd January 11:00
Almost identical to the case of the poor Mr Allam.
One would of course hope that if the suspect says look I have archived messages please check them out the Police would do so, but it appears Kay didn't know he had access to the archived messages until after trial and so it was not picked up. Unfortunately for him in the absence the remaining evidence was compelling enough for conviction.
It was the transcript of conversation between the accuser and accused at the relevant time, the modern equivalent of a phone conversation transcript, so very relevant. The accuser redacted the transcript, the police didn't check.
No need to light the afterburners just because the term 'social media' was used in the generic sense.
No need to light the afterburners just because the term 'social media' was used in the generic sense.
andy_s said:
It was the transcript of conversation between the accuser and accused at the relevant time, the modern equivalent of a phone conversation transcript, so very relevant. The accuser redacted the transcript, the police didn't check.
No need to light the afterburners just because the term 'social media' was used in the generic sense.
I think there probably still is, if the police are recommending for conviction on the basis of doctored evidence supplied by the complainant!No need to light the afterburners just because the term 'social media' was used in the generic sense.
Venturist said:
andy_s said:
It was the transcript of conversation between the accuser and accused at the relevant time, the modern equivalent of a phone conversation transcript, so very relevant. The accuser redacted the transcript, the police didn't check.
No need to light the afterburners just because the term 'social media' was used in the generic sense.
I think there probably still is, if the police are recommending for conviction on the basis of doctored evidence supplied by the complainant!No need to light the afterburners just because the term 'social media' was used in the generic sense.
Isnt it for the Judge and Jury to decide whether or not it's wholesome
saaby93 said:
Surely that doesnt matter so much.
Isnt it for the Judge and Jury to decide whether or not it's wholesome
Indeed but if it’s presented by the police, and no specific mention is made of the fact that this is evidence provided by the complainant and not verified, the peers in the jury would naturally take it as having been vetted. Isnt it for the Judge and Jury to decide whether or not it's wholesome
Venturist said:
andy_s said:
It was the transcript of conversation between the accuser and accused at the relevant time, the modern equivalent of a phone conversation transcript, so very relevant. The accuser redacted the transcript, the police didn't check.
No need to light the afterburners just because the term 'social media' was used in the generic sense.
I think there probably still is, if the police are recommending for conviction on the basis of doctored evidence supplied by the complainant!No need to light the afterburners just because the term 'social media' was used in the generic sense.
'Social media' could have been cctv footage or text messages,
The original premise here was you shouldn't use Social Media, but of course you can - you just need to be careful and diligent, like any other evidence.
Bloody hell! Another one!!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5244471/Ma...
A year on remand to find the police had CCTV that proved no force involved as alleged, & it had been reviewed & found to be having "nothing of relevance"!
becoming quite the thing for cops to "miss" these things.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5244471/Ma...
A year on remand to find the police had CCTV that proved no force involved as alleged, & it had been reviewed & found to be having "nothing of relevance"!
becoming quite the thing for cops to "miss" these things.
kowalski655 said:
Bloody hell! Another one!!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5244471/Ma...
A year on remand to find the police had CCTV that proved no force involved as alleged, & it had been reviewed & found to be having "nothing of relevance"!
becoming quite the thing for cops to "miss" these things.
Unbelievable. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5244471/Ma...
A year on remand to find the police had CCTV that proved no force involved as alleged, & it had been reviewed & found to be having "nothing of relevance"!
becoming quite the thing for cops to "miss" these things.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff