Is there any source for this though? I read elsewhere that after the case was dropped originally in 2011, the accuser went back to the police with further allegations and that this tipped the balance in favour of a prosecution.
The accusers Mother complained that no further action had been taken and lodged a formal complaint against them . The DPP's legal advisor then reviewed the file and said there was enough evidence to proceed and overuled the CPS guy and authorised the CPS to bring charges. The Police then also continued with an investigation after the complainant told them she had forgotten to tell them about other attacks ( forgotten ! ) . The Mother did not apparently ask to sell the story this time round she only did that during the first investigation.
Unfortunately in the absence of any other evidence, the answer has to be "yes".
The alternative would be a number of decisions based on nothing more tangible than the jurors' instincts or on which of the parties the jury found more appealing. Hardly a verdict "beyond reasonable doubt".
As this is a thread about the CPS and their role, I disagree with your post.
Abuse and rape is historically very difficult to convict, but if the assessment of victims by lawyers was more rigorous during the precognition stage and cases which have a chance of success reached court then more convictions would be secured. Throwing these cases without proper scrutiny at juries is only going to lead to less convictions, not more. This is where the CPS is failing.
It is to be hoped in the current climate women and girls will come forward sooner.
Women and girls need to be aware and educated into understanding that abuse, any abuse is totally wrong and reporting it at the earliest opportunity is them taking back control.
I guess it could press home the point of not leaving it too long, or too late, to come forward as the longer you leave it the more difficult it will be to prove it.
Unfortunately in the absence of any other evidence, the answer has to be "yes".
The alternative would be a number of decisions based on nothing more tangible than the jurors' instincts or on which of the parties the jury found more appealing. Hardly a verdict "beyond reasonable doubt".
I for one would not want "justice" to be dispensed in this fashion.
But then that would also apply to non-sexual offence cases, in which case it's the whole Jury system that needs an overhaul. It certainly should not be used as an excuse to not investigate complaints of sexual abuse that appear to be genuine. Remember these cases are not just automatically charged based upon the victim's word, but rather the victim's evidence will be reviewed by various officers and CPS lawyers, along with any account the suspect may have given in interview.
I guess it could press home the point of not leaving it too long, or too late, to come forward as the longer you leave it the more difficult it will be to prove it.
Unfortunately leaving it is not a decision that victim's of sexual abuse have much control over, it's all part of the psychological effect of the abuse. The after effects of a crime should not be used as a means to preventing a prosecution.
If there were little chance of justice being bestowed upon the abuser perhaps there should be more emphasis on help for the victim?
THIS in a word.
We have become so seduced by the argument that criminal punishment of the abuser is the only way we can help a victim that what REALLY helps a victim gets overlooked.
Care for victims should be separate and completely independent of the criminal justice system. If they rely on the criminal justice system taking care of their needs, they are bound to be disappointed.
This is the Scandinavian model. The needs of victims (particularly their psychological needs and recovery) are wholly independent of the criminal process and therefore not dependent upon it.
Comments
The accusers Mother complained that no further action had been taken and lodged a formal complaint against them . The DPP's legal advisor then reviewed the file and said there was enough evidence to proceed and overuled the CPS guy and authorised the CPS to bring charges. The Police then also continued with an investigation after the complainant told them she had forgotten to tell them about other attacks ( forgotten ! ) . The Mother did not apparently ask to sell the story this time round she only did that during the first investigation.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2417002/Clash-lawyers-revived-dead-case-QC-overrulled-original-decision-charge-Le-Vell-victims-mother-complained.html
As this is a thread about the CPS and their role, I disagree with your post.
Abuse and rape is historically very difficult to convict, but if the assessment of victims by lawyers was more rigorous during the precognition stage and cases which have a chance of success reached court then more convictions would be secured. Throwing these cases without proper scrutiny at juries is only going to lead to less convictions, not more. This is where the CPS is failing.
I guess it could press home the point of not leaving it too long, or too late, to come forward as the longer you leave it the more difficult it will be to prove it.
But then that would also apply to non-sexual offence cases, in which case it's the whole Jury system that needs an overhaul. It certainly should not be used as an excuse to not investigate complaints of sexual abuse that appear to be genuine. Remember these cases are not just automatically charged based upon the victim's word, but rather the victim's evidence will be reviewed by various officers and CPS lawyers, along with any account the suspect may have given in interview.
Unfortunately leaving it is not a decision that victim's of sexual abuse have much control over, it's all part of the psychological effect of the abuse. The after effects of a crime should not be used as a means to preventing a prosecution.
THIS in a word.
We have become so seduced by the argument that criminal punishment of the abuser is the only way we can help a victim that what REALLY helps a victim gets overlooked.
Care for victims should be separate and completely independent of the criminal justice system. If they rely on the criminal justice system taking care of their needs, they are bound to be disappointed.
This is the Scandinavian model. The needs of victims (particularly their psychological needs and recovery) are wholly independent of the criminal process and therefore not dependent upon it.