Monday, 9 September 2013

What ‘Public Interest’ Does The CPS Think Applies Here?

…or is it more a case of wondering just what ‘public’ the CPS feels it needs to represent?
The CPS acknowledged, following a 19-month inquiry, that there was sufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution with a “realistic prospect of conviction”. But it told police that a “public interest test” had not been met.
The CPS said that there was no need to mount a prosecution because the General Medical Council, the body which oversees the conduct of doctors, could deal with the case. However, the GMC has no criminal powers and cannot prosecute breaches of the law.
Sources familiar with the Scotland Yard investigation said that prosecutors saw the issue as “sensitive” and that it had become “political”.
Unity at Ministry of Truth has a comprehensive post up unpicking the various legal arguments and coming to the conclusion that there's really nothing to this.

Really? Or is it more the case that the two consultants involved are called Prabha Sivaraman and Raj Mohan, and not John Smith or Wendy Turner?
Mr Hunt voiced alarm at the decision and pressed for “urgent clarification” from the Attorney General. He said: “We are clear that gender selection abortion is against the law and completely unacceptable.
“This is a concerning development and I have written to the Attorney General to ask for urgent clarification on the grounds for this decision.”
No, what’s needed is to ensure that the AG makes an example of the CPS personnel involved, and then makes an example of these two doctors.


Fahrenheit211 said...

Yup! Looks like the CPS pandering to the Bearded Savages again.

Radical Rodent said...

Why don't the doctors "John Smith" and "Wendy Turner" set up a similar scheme?

It would be interesting to see how quickly they ended up in the dock, as well as revealing the atrocious racism that is obviously becoming endemic in the CPS.

Mark In Mayenne said...

The adjective "public" has several meanings, according to the dictionary.

When the CPS describes something as "not in the public interest" the meaning of "public" that applies is, I think, "pertaining to government".

Please note in passing that "the public interest" is not the same thing as "the public's interest". These two things are often very different.

JuliaM said...

" well as revealing the atrocious racism that is obviously becoming endemic in the CPS."

What point revealing it, when it seems few care?

" These two things are often very different."

Indeed so!

Anonymous said...

It's interesting. If by "not in the public interest" the CPS means "not in the government's interest" then the CPS is admitting to be nothing other than an arm of government policy, using the law as an excuse.