An “extremely dangerous” rapist has walked free after being prosecuted for a crime that does not exist.What?!?
David Shields, 58, was accused of stripping naked in front of a woman on a beach and sexually assaulting her.But…
The attack, last October, took place less than a mile from where he raped a 26-yearold woman in January 1992.
Shields was sentenced to nine months in prison for breaching a sexual offences prevention order given to him when he was released from his ten year jail sentence.
However, he was charged under outdated laws and has now been released from jail on a technicality after serving just two months of his sentence.Don’t you just love loophole-seeking lawyers? Not that they had to scratch their heads too hard in this case:
In 2005, Shields was given a life-long sexual offences prevention order (Sopo) because of the risk he posed to women.Yes, our wonderful, devoted, professional CPS staff charged the bloke with the wrong thing.
However, the charge he was tried for at Lewes Crown Court in March was breaching a “sex offender order” under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which is now an outdated offence.
Whoops!
Still, a mistake anyone can make, and at least they’ve owned up to…
Oh.
Despite the fact that the more convictions he racks up, the greater the chance someone will finally say ‘He needs to be put away for a long time!’ at last?
Then why should they ever ‘learn lessons’?
Still, a mistake anyone can make, and at least they’ve owned up to…
Oh.
The Argus can now report the judge’s decision after three appeal judges overturned Shields’ conviction and reporting restrictions were lifted.Did they think they could hide it forever?
A CPS lawyer said another trial was “not in the interests of justice” as Shields has served at least part of his original sentence which was nine months.In other words, the fact that he’s a dangerous individual is neither here nor there; he wouldn’t get a longer sentence anyway, so why bother to try?
Despite the fact that the more convictions he racks up, the greater the chance someone will finally say ‘He needs to be put away for a long time!’ at last?
A CPS spokeswoman said: “There was a technical error in the wording of the charge put before the court which regrettably no one spotted until it was too late to rectify.Have you sacked anyone? No?
“We have taken steps to ensure that this does not happen again.”
Then why should they ever ‘learn lessons’?
8 comments:
Being imprisoned for a crime that doesn't exist...I'd hardly call getting him out a 'technicality'.
The fact he is scum that should be hanged doesn't alter the fact he was unlawfully imprisoned.
Hopefully he'll get lots of compensation.
"Hopefully he'll get lots of compensation."
Yes, we can only hope so. (On the proviso, of course, that said compensation is paid not by the taxpayer, but personally by the incompetents involved at the CPS.)
CPS = Lawyers whom no half-way, self-respecting Legal Practice would touch with a forty foot barge-pole ..
CPS = Pay peanuts .. employ monkeys ..
"but personally by the incompetents involved at the CPS"
I wish.
THAT might be the single biggest improvement to our 'justice' system this century.
SBC,
Are you insane?
This is why (just one of many reasons) the UK will eat itself.
When the law shows itself an ass, just revert to doing what is right. Who told him, anyway?
I hope he doesn't get a penny, or if he does, his victims drag him through the courts and bankrupt him.
"Are you insane?"
Probably.
But no I happen to believe that NO ONE should be unlawfully imprisoned, don't matter what he has done. It's called being a right wing libertarian....habeaus corpus, Manga Cider or whatever it was called..y'know?
I wouldn't have a problem with his victims sueing his arse for his compo pay out though. Same if sells his story to hollywood.
SBC,
He wasn't wrongly imprisoned.
He was wrongly charged.
Big difference.
"Hopefully he'll get lots of compensation."
I'm with PT on that!
"He wasn't wrongly imprisoned.
He was wrongly charged."
Good point!
Post a Comment