Saturday, 12 April 2014

No, ‘Guardian’, This Is NOT ‘A Failure Of The Jury’…


...in fact, the jury succeeded where the CPS failed. As your columnist, Joshua Rozenberg, points out:
Evans is only the latest in a series of high-profile defendants to be found not guilty of sexual assault. Inevitably, questions are being asked about why the CPS brought charges in the first place. It is, after all, the job of the CPS to filter evidence obtained by the police.
Before bringing a prosecution, the CPS must decide whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction and whether a prosecution would be in the public interest.
Note that: ‘the public interest’. Not the interest of the pressure groups fighting to change our justice system (and disgracefully being given a sympathetic ear by the establishment).
Those who objected to the more cautious approach that used to be taken by the CPS complained that prosecutors seemed particularly reluctant to allow cases of sexual assault to go to trial.
These are notoriously difficult for juries. Often, there are just two witnesses to the alleged offence: the complainant and the defendant. Juries must decide which one of them is telling the truth. The most telling charge against the CPS is that it has been too willing to listen to those who told it to bring charges even if the evidence was not very strong, and simply "leave it to the jury to decide".
But the message from juries to the CPS is very clear: if you produce the evidence, we'll convict the defendants. But if you don't, we won't.
Don’t worry. Kier Starmer has plans to fix this!

5 comments:

James said...

I'd really love the opportunity to sit down with some of these idiots who appear distressed that the rules aren't working in their favour and so wish to move the goalposts and ask them just what the hell they are thinking and to take a step back and look at themselves.

The whole core of our justice system, a set of principles that date back to Roman times is that the full burden of proof is on the prosecution, that it is better to see ten guilty men go free than have one innocent man jailed. That a conviction can only take place if the case has been proved BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT. We lose sight of this we lose sight of our very humanity.

When the legal system entrenches itself in a culture of results then bad things will happen. The truth takes a back seat to everyone getting paid.

I have every sympathy for genuine victims of sexual assault of any kind. And justice is available to them when they report this immediately, allowing for the preservation of forensic evidence, the availability of witnesses, proof of presence at the scene and the existence of lack of alibis for the accused. If you wait 30 or even 3 years for all of the above to vanish into the ether, them I'm sorry you have passed up your opportunity for the justice you seek and must make your peace with that. Under no circumstances should the rules be changed or bent to indulge you. The moment you do that you jail an innocent man *cough* Jonathan King *cough* and stand two thousand years of human society on its head.

Tatty said...

Personally, I don't think it's for the CPS for decide whether any case has a 'realistic prospect of conviction' or is 'in the public interest'.

It smacks of 'here's one we think you'll like' and for that is on a par with crappy supermarket adverts.

As far as I am concerned if The Law has been broken and there is evidence of that then it is ALWAYS for a Jury to decide on the quality of it and whether to convict on it's basis.

Otherwise, what Justice ?

Furor Teutonicus said...

XX Those who objected to the more cautious approach that used to be taken by the CPS complained that prosecutors seemed particularly reluctant to allow cases of sexual assault to go to trial. XX

???

Yes.... That is what these commy shite bags were after all along was it not, checks and ballances to ensure THEY were not nicked under some "Sus" charge whilst using the cover of a riot to loot the local Dixons store?

Now they have it, they don't like that either.

tolkein said...

The big issue for me is that acquitted defendants like Nigel Evans (who, as a Tory, I have very little time for) have been impoverished - to the tune of £130,000 - in defending themselves. And, because of changes to the law, can no longer recover their costs. So also Dave Lee Travis, whose defence has cost him £250,000 and counting. There is a real danger that the process will be the punishment. And if he didn't have £130,000 to spend, would Nigel Evans be in jail?

JuliaM said...

"The whole core of our justice system, a set of principles that date back to Roman times is that the full burden of proof is on the prosecution, that it is better to see ten guilty men go free than have one innocent man jailed."

That's old hat! The progressives are happy to see it reversed, but only for crimes they personally disapprove of.

"As far as I am concerned if The Law has been broken and there is evidence of that then it is ALWAYS for a Jury to decide on the quality of it..."

So, you're happy to pour more of our money down the drain on things that aren't really 'crimes' as such, but the fevered imaginations of the Perpetually Offended?

"Now they have it, they don't like that either."

The hallmark of the Prgressine: "Do something!" "No, wait, Not THAT!"

" And if he didn't have £130,000 to spend, would Nigel Evans be in jail?"

The irony is it was his party that voted through that change...

Although this case was so flimsy, U like to think he could have settled for a public defender.