I see Nigel Evans is saying that the CPS should pay his £130,000 legal bill.
I think some kind of review of these cases is due. This is clearly a very difficult issue but to me that's all the more reason to look at it harder. Justice has to be seen to be fair and there is definitely a perception emerging that innocent people are having their lives destroyed by over-zealous authorities. The yin and yang needs restoring.
I see Nigel Evans is saying that the CPS should pay his £130,000 legal bill.
I think some kind of review of these cases is due. This is clearly a very difficult issue but to me that's all the more reason to look at it harder. Justice has to be seen to be fair and there is definitely a perception emerging that innocent people are having their lives destroyed by over-zealous authorities. The yin and yang needs restoring.
All his life savings, there needs to be an investigation on some of these cases get Keith Vaz onto it.
I see Nigel Evans is saying that the CPS should pay his £130,000 legal bill.
I think some kind of review of these cases is due. This is clearly a very difficult issue but to me that's all the more reason to look at it harder. Justice has to be seen to be fair and there is definitely a perception emerging that innocent people are having their lives destroyed by over-zealous authorities. The yin and yang needs restoring.
If it happens at all, and it will no doubt open the floodgates to every Joe Soap found not guilty trying to claim more money from taxpayers, it should happen after Theresa May has provided her report on Yewtree etc to Parliament, including any awkward information about Tory Party figures in the past or present, and any decision on Patrick Rock. Those things are long promised priorities. The Evans quibbles shouldn't be permitted to jump the queue.
If it happens at all, and it will no doubt open the floodgates to every Joe Soap found not guilty trying to claim more money from taxpayers, it should happen after Theresa May has provided her report on Yewtree etc to Parliament, including any awkward information about Tory Party figures in the past or present, and any decision on Patrick Rock. Those things are long promised priorities. The Evans quibbles shouldn't be permitted to jump the queue.
Surely in our legal system it must be right that if someone prosecutes you and fails to get a conviction, they should pay the costs?
Surely in our legal system it must be right that if someone prosecutes you and fails to get a conviction, they should pay the costs?
Yes - in principle I think so. Lawyers could no doubt advise why that doesn't happen in every case. I expect there are umpteen tenuous barriers but if a wholesale change is what is wanted, that would take months if not years.
Retrospective exceptions to the rule also need adequate justification and indeed further justification on any limits set on other retrospective claims. If it is to be done thoroughly, and it should be if it is done at all, that will take time too. It isn't as if the Government has so much to do that it has to rush at it. It has passed less legislation than any Government since 1950 and delayed the most recent Queens speech twice because it had run out of new ideas.
Yes - in principle I think so. Lawyers could no doubt advise why that doesn't happen in every case. I expect there are umpteen tenuous barriers but if a wholesale change is what is wanted, that would take months if not years.
Retrospective exceptions to the rule also need adequate justification and indeed further justification on any limits set on other retrospective claims. If it is to be done thoroughly, and it should be if it is done at all, that will take time too. It isn't as if the Government has so much to do that it has to rush at it. It has passed less legislation than any Government since 1950 and delayed the most recent Queens speech twice because it had run out of new ideas.
To be fair, this is the first coalition government since 1950, and enacting legislation that has the support of both parties is obviously going to be more difficult than for a majority party government.
But just because something is going to be difficult doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted. If something appears to be broken, then I think it has to be looked at.
To be fair, this is the first coalition government since 1950, and enacting legislation that has the support of both parties is obviously going to be more difficult than for a majority party government.
But just because something is going to be difficult doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted. If something appears to be broken, then I think it has to be looked at.
my understanding of his statement is that he can claim reimbursement of legal fees. But he would only receive the equivalent of legal aid fees and the money comes from central funds.
He feels that if the money came from the CPS budget this would make them more accountable for taking cases to court which have little prospect of conviction, and may make them less likely to proceed with cases such as his and other recent cases e.g DLT, Le Vell and Roache.
Surely in our legal system it must be right that if someone prosecutes you and fails to get a conviction, they should pay the costs?
Right. That would be the case in any event, even a fairly-brought trial. This was just a witchhunt, there was nothing fair about it. A witchhunt on the part of a CPS with the funds of the nation behind it, against an innocent bloke they targetted in a pathetic attempt to look like they were somehow trying Jimmy Saville from beyond the grave.
I really hope they get served their poetic justice and have to pay his 130K costs; that'd be something for MPs to actually unite behind.
Right. That would be the case in any event, even a fairly-brought trial. This was just a witchhunt, there was nothing fair about it. A witchhunt on the part of a CPS with the funds of the nation behind it, against an innocent bloke they targetted in a pathetic attempt to look like they were somehow trying Jimmy Saville from beyond the grave.
I really hope they get served their poetic justice and have to pay his 130K costs; that'd be something for MPs to actually unite behind.
I think the police were closely linked with Saville and probably Cyril Smith as well, why were these never caught up with while still alive. The Police and the CPS have now gone the opposite way and seem they want to prove that serious child abuse was indemic amongst certain circles.
I also think the Metropolitan Police are involved in some of the hacking cases.
We will have to see what Operation Yewtree brings out.
I think the police were closely linked with Saville and probably Cyril Smith as well, why were these never caught up with while still alive. The Police and the CPS have now gone the opposite way and seem they want to prove that serious child abuse was indemic amongst certain circles.
I also think the Metropolitan Police are involved in some of the hacking cases.
We will have to see what Operation Yewtree brings out.
Yes but don't forget the heavy push was by Sarah Wollaston MP and others in the Conservative Party. Had CPS said no, the Tories would have been even more critical. CPS were damned if they did and damned if they didn't.
Also remember that the Evans case is one wholly involving adults. As I have said before, no one seemed to be a winner but if the Evans case was always to be used as an excuse for not bringing forward cases against Tories and others on child abuse for reasons of political expediency then it has a horrible rationality to it. It triggers cover-up.
I am on the side of the head of CPS on this one. She couldn't win one way or the other and decided on balance to do what the Conservative Party had asked. I just hope that neither she or Evans has been used to win an election.
If it happens at all, and it will no doubt open the floodgates to every Joe Soap found not guilty trying to claim more money from taxpayers, it should happen after Theresa May has provided her report on Yewtree etc to Parliament, including any awkward information about Tory Party figures in the past or present, and any decision on Patrick Rock. Those things are long promised priorities. The Evans quibbles shouldn't be permitted to jump the queue.
Yes but don't forget the heavy push was by Sarah Wollaston MP and others in the Conservative Party. Had CPS said no, the Tories would have been even more critical. CPS were damned if they did and damned if they didn't.
Also remember that the Evans case is one wholly involving adults. As I have said before, no one seemed to be a winner but if the Evans case was always to be used as an excuse for not bringing forward cases against Tories and others on child abuse for reasons of political expediency then it has a horrible rationality to it. It triggers cover-up.
I am on the side of the head of CPS on this one. She couldn't win one way or the other and decided on balance to do what the Conservative Party had asked. I just hope that neither she or Evans has been used to win an election.
It's not difficult to see your motivation on this story.
it seems to me fairly clear that it is wrong that the state can take from anyone who has done nothing wrong, broken no laws, their life savings. tory or not.
it is quite clear to most people that the CPS has lost their shit. that there is not a realistic prospect of conviction in many of the charges they have brought in this area.
'CPS were damned if they did and damned if they didn't.' - great quote. it doesn't matter. the cps does not get to make decisions on whether to prosecute, ruin people's lives based on it's own PR. they have to apply the law. that is all.
I see Nigel Evans is saying that the CPS should pay his £130,000 legal bill.
I think some kind of review of these cases is due. This is clearly a very difficult issue but to me that's all the more reason to look at it harder. Justice has to be seen to be fair and there is definitely a perception emerging that innocent people are having their lives destroyed by over-zealous authorities. The yin and yang needs restoring.
He should thank whatever gods he believes in as many people in a similar situation would not be able to afford legal representation at all or would have to sell everything, not just use up their life savings
Yes but don't forget the heavy push was by Sarah Wollaston MP and others in the Conservative Party. Had CPS said no, the Tories would have been even more critical. CPS were damned if they did and damned if they didn't.
Also remember that the Evans case is one wholly involving adults. As I have said before, no one seemed to be a winner but if the Evans case was always to be used as an excuse for not bringing forward cases against Tories and others on child abuse for reasons of political expediency then it has a horrible rationality to it. It triggers cover-up.
I am on the side of the head of CPS on this one. She couldn't win one way or the other and decided on balance to do what the Conservative Party had asked. I just hope that neither she or Evans has been used to win an election.
Not quite like that, Wollaston went to the Speaker and asked him to investigate complaints that had been made to her it was Bercow that called in the police. I have no objection to the case being investigated but it seems the police had very flimsy evidence to pass over to the the CPS, one or the other should have thrown been this out.
He should thank whatever gods he believes in as many people in a similar situation would not be able to afford legal representation at all or would have to sell everything, not just use up their life savings
There seem to be a lot of people around with a degree in hindsight saying the case should never have been brought because there was not enough evidence etc.
What this ignores is that the Judge can dismiss charges if he thinks there is insufficient evidence to proceed. So I guess by that logic the fact that the Judge did not dismiss the charges then he must have thought there was enough evidence to proceed. Either that or he too must be in on the conspiracy ...............
There seem to be a lot of people around with a degree in hindsight saying the case should never have been brought because there was not enough evidence etc.
What this ignores is that the Judge can dismiss charges if he thinks there is insufficient evidence to proceed. So I guess by that logic the fact that the Judge did not dismiss the charges then he must have thought there was enough evidence to proceed. Either that or he too must be in on the conspiracy ...............
I thought he did dismiss some of the charges, but him not dismissing them all does not back up that the case should have been brought to trial.
Well the way you put it is that the CPS should pass over all cases to trial and hope the judge will pick out the bad ones, nonsense.
I think this is right. You can't use the fact that there is supposed to be a another fail-safe further down the line as an excuse for not fixing the first fail-safe if it appears not to be working.
Well the way you put it is that the CPS should pass over all cases to trial and hope the judge will pick out the bad ones, nonsense.
The only way you could put that interpretation on what I said was if you were baiting and deliberately looking for an argument IMO. IMO that is something you have been doing a lot recently. Now do you see why I am not interested in debating with you ?
The only way you could put that interpretation on what I said was if you were baiting and deliberately looking for an argument IMO. IMO that is something you have been doing a lot recently. Now do you see why I am not interested in debating with you ?
This is what you said, which seemed to me to be put in plain English.
There seem to be a lot of people around with a degree in hindsight saying the case should never have been brought because there was not enough evidence etc.
What this ignores is that the Judge can dismiss charges if he thinks there is insufficient evidence to proceed. So I guess by that logic the fact that the Judge did not dismiss the charges then he must have thought there was enough evidence to proceed. Either that or he too must be in on the conspiracy ...............
I thought I was replying in a correct manner, but if you do not want to debate then don't post.
Comments
I think some kind of review of these cases is due. This is clearly a very difficult issue but to me that's all the more reason to look at it harder. Justice has to be seen to be fair and there is definitely a perception emerging that innocent people are having their lives destroyed by over-zealous authorities. The yin and yang needs restoring.
All his life savings, there needs to be an investigation on some of these cases get Keith Vaz onto it.
If it happens at all, and it will no doubt open the floodgates to every Joe Soap found not guilty trying to claim more money from taxpayers, it should happen after Theresa May has provided her report on Yewtree etc to Parliament, including any awkward information about Tory Party figures in the past or present, and any decision on Patrick Rock. Those things are long promised priorities. The Evans quibbles shouldn't be permitted to jump the queue.
Surely in our legal system it must be right that if someone prosecutes you and fails to get a conviction, they should pay the costs?
Yes - in principle I think so. Lawyers could no doubt advise why that doesn't happen in every case. I expect there are umpteen tenuous barriers but if a wholesale change is what is wanted, that would take months if not years.
Retrospective exceptions to the rule also need adequate justification and indeed further justification on any limits set on other retrospective claims. If it is to be done thoroughly, and it should be if it is done at all, that will take time too. It isn't as if the Government has so much to do that it has to rush at it. It has passed less legislation than any Government since 1950 and delayed the most recent Queens speech twice because it had run out of new ideas.
To be fair, this is the first coalition government since 1950, and enacting legislation that has the support of both parties is obviously going to be more difficult than for a majority party government.
But just because something is going to be difficult doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted. If something appears to be broken, then I think it has to be looked at.
Yes - good points.
He feels that if the money came from the CPS budget this would make them more accountable for taking cases to court which have little prospect of conviction, and may make them less likely to proceed with cases such as his and other recent cases e.g DLT, Le Vell and Roache.
Right. That would be the case in any event, even a fairly-brought trial. This was just a witchhunt, there was nothing fair about it. A witchhunt on the part of a CPS with the funds of the nation behind it, against an innocent bloke they targetted in a pathetic attempt to look like they were somehow trying Jimmy Saville from beyond the grave.
I really hope they get served their poetic justice and have to pay his 130K costs; that'd be something for MPs to actually unite behind.
I think the police were closely linked with Saville and probably Cyril Smith as well, why were these never caught up with while still alive. The Police and the CPS have now gone the opposite way and seem they want to prove that serious child abuse was indemic amongst certain circles.
I also think the Metropolitan Police are involved in some of the hacking cases.
We will have to see what Operation Yewtree brings out.
Although, I expected him to have a lot more than £130K. He must have been one of the less well off MPs!
Yes but don't forget the heavy push was by Sarah Wollaston MP and others in the Conservative Party. Had CPS said no, the Tories would have been even more critical. CPS were damned if they did and damned if they didn't.
Also remember that the Evans case is one wholly involving adults. As I have said before, no one seemed to be a winner but if the Evans case was always to be used as an excuse for not bringing forward cases against Tories and others on child abuse for reasons of political expediency then it has a horrible rationality to it. It triggers cover-up.
I am on the side of the head of CPS on this one. She couldn't win one way or the other and decided on balance to do what the Conservative Party had asked. I just hope that neither she or Evans has been used to win an election.
It's not difficult to see your motivation on this story.
it seems to me fairly clear that it is wrong that the state can take from anyone who has done nothing wrong, broken no laws, their life savings. tory or not.
it is quite clear to most people that the CPS has lost their shit. that there is not a realistic prospect of conviction in many of the charges they have brought in this area.
'CPS were damned if they did and damned if they didn't.' - great quote. it doesn't matter. the cps does not get to make decisions on whether to prosecute, ruin people's lives based on it's own PR. they have to apply the law. that is all.
He should thank whatever gods he believes in as many people in a similar situation would not be able to afford legal representation at all or would have to sell everything, not just use up their life savings
Not quite like that, Wollaston went to the Speaker and asked him to investigate complaints that had been made to her it was Bercow that called in the police. I have no objection to the case being investigated but it seems the police had very flimsy evidence to pass over to the the CPS, one or the other should have thrown been this out.
What a strange thing to say.
What this ignores is that the Judge can dismiss charges if he thinks there is insufficient evidence to proceed. So I guess by that logic the fact that the Judge did not dismiss the charges then he must have thought there was enough evidence to proceed. Either that or he too must be in on the conspiracy ...............
I thought he did dismiss some of the charges, but him not dismissing them all does not back up that the case should have been brought to trial.
Nice try but I am still not playing.
Well the way you put it is that the CPS should pass over all cases to trial and hope the judge will pick out the bad ones, nonsense.
100% true though. If he hadn't had money then it would have been harder to prove his innocence
I think this is right. You can't use the fact that there is supposed to be a another fail-safe further down the line as an excuse for not fixing the first fail-safe if it appears not to be working.
It was the bit about being thankful he had the money to lose.
The only way you could put that interpretation on what I said was if you were baiting and deliberately looking for an argument IMO. IMO that is something you have been doing a lot recently. Now do you see why I am not interested in debating with you ?
This is what you said, which seemed to me to be put in plain English.
There seem to be a lot of people around with a degree in hindsight saying the case should never have been brought because there was not enough evidence etc.
What this ignores is that the Judge can dismiss charges if he thinks there is insufficient evidence to proceed. So I guess by that logic the fact that the Judge did not dismiss the charges then he must have thought there was enough evidence to proceed. Either that or he too must be in on the conspiracy ...............
I thought I was replying in a correct manner, but if you do not want to debate then don't post.