To be fair, the clue is in the word "trial", to "try the evidence", to test it before a jury and have them decide whether it is sound enough to convict under the balance of probabilities. Probably why justice is represented by a set of scales etc
Exactly, CitySlicker, that is how the system works. The Crown Prosecution Service clearly felt that the evidence was strong enough to bring a prosecution and let a jury decide on the facts of the case and they have.
The issue should not be about bashing the CPS or Keir Starmer but about whether defendants in such cases should be granted anonymity. My own view here is that defendants' identities should certainly not be disclosed before formal charges are laid (too much of that has happened in recent years) and I'd like to see a public debate about whether that anonymity should be extended to the prosecution phase too.
BIB. Well no, they didn't actually. In 2012 the CPS decided, quite properly, that there was no realistic chance of a conviction. Then Savilegate happened and Keir Starmer wanted to be seen to be Doing Something. So he told Alison Levitt QC to Do Something. So she decided that the DPP should Decide That The CPS Had Got This Decision Wrong, and he did, and he ordered it to be opened again.
Hence this thread about the lack of integrity, and the profligacy of Keir Starmer.
To be fair, the clue is in the word "trial", to "try the evidence", to test it before a jury and have them decide whether it is sound enough to convict under the balance of probabilities. Probably why justice is represented by a set of scales etc
It is the CPS's job to assess the evidence before deciding to send it to trial. Only cases where there is evidence that a conviction is probable based on evidence should be sent to trial. If they are merely evidence gatherers then why have them at all.?
It is the CPS's job to assess the evidence before deciding to send it to trial. Only cases where there is evidence that a conviction is probable based on evidence should be sent to trial. If they are merely evidence gatherers then why have them at all.?
Not "probable", - a realistic chance of, and in the public interest.
BIB. Well no, they didn't actually. In 2012 the CPS decided, quite properly, that there was no realistic chance of a conviction. Then Savilegate happened and Keir Starmer wanted to be seen to be Doing Something. So he told Alison Levitt QC to Do Something. So she decided that the DPP should Decide That The CPS Had Got This Decision Wrong, and he did, and he ordered it to be opened again.
Hence this thread about the lack of integrity, and the profligacy of Keir Starmer.
Well yes because their prosecution lawyers had a look at the case in detail and thought that they ought in the end to proceed based on the evidence before them. Those lawyers do not know, and nor should they ever know, how a jury will respond to what's put before them. That's how the system works - defendants are either found guilty or innocent by a jury and it just so happens that this was a high profile acquittal.
I go back to my original point - the real issue ought to be about defendant anonymity especially where the charges are highly controversial.
Well yes because their prosecution lawyers had a look at the case in detail and thought that they ought in the end to proceed based on the evidence before them. Those lawyers do not know, and nor should they ever know, how a jury will respond to what's put before them. That's how the system works - defendants are either found guilty or innocent by a jury and it just so happens that this was a high profile acquittal.
I go back to my original point - the real issue ought to be about defendant anonymity especially where the charges are highly controversial.
Sorry, I do this sort of stuff for a job. The CPS lawyers decided there was no realistic prospect of a conviction. Levitt and Starmer decided to re-open the file and go for it, purely for political ends.
But why have trials at all if we only prosecute the cases the crown will probably win? May as well do away with them and juries and go straight to a conviction. As I said, it's a balancing act where the CPS have to weigh up their realistic chances and put it to a jury to decide. On this occasion, they got it dead wrong.
Sorry, I do this sort of stuff for a job. The CPS lawyers decided there was no realistic prospect of a conviction. Levitt and Starmer decided to re-open the file and go for it, purely for political ends.
thats not quite true, the accuser made further allegations which added to the evidence they had previously decided was not enough, then the case was reviewed, it wasnt reviewed on the basis of the original evidence only
Sorry, I do this sort of stuff for a job. The CPS lawyers decided there was no realistic prospect of a conviction. Levitt and Starmer decided to re-open the file and go for it, purely for political ends.
No they didn't, they had further allegations to consider on review.
Sorry, I do this sort of stuff for a job. The CPS lawyers decided there was no realistic prospect of a conviction. Levitt and Starmer decided to re-open the file and go for it, purely for political ends.
Then it must have been their judgement that a) it was in the greater public interest and b) that there was still a reasonable probability that they could secure a conviction. If there were screams and howlings of outrage very time a defendant was found innocent then there would be a huge turnover of CPS lawyers and senior management and the system would collapse.
This comes across as a witch hunt against Starmer and the CPS just because some celebrity was involved in a criminal case. That should certainly not be the criterion for unjust sackings.
If there is no supporting evidence other than what one person says, it should never go ahead EVER. Too much scope for a malicious accusation and miscarriage of justice.
It's so ludicrous that I could make up a complete cock and bull story about a teacher I didn't like at school, 24 years down the line, and he could potentially end up in court as a result. That is just wrong on every conceivable level.
... That's how the system works - defendants are either found guilty or innocent by a jury and it just so happens that this was a high profile acquittal...
Apart from the fact that there is no innocent verdict.
Guilty - Did it.
Not Guilty - There is, at least reasonable, doubt that they did not do it.
If there was absolutely no question about their innocence there would have probably been sufficient evidence to prove it before it even came to trial.
No they didn't, they had further allegations to consider on review.
I think the further allegations were in fact a few recovered memories does not actually amout to very much new evidence.
I think there was a huge element of the CPS being caught up in the current climate and instead of making a realistic assessment did the Public Interest thing and threw it at the jury to actually deal with when IMO had they done their job correctly this would never have reached a jury.
This comes across as a witch hunt against Starmer and the CPS just because some celebrity was involved in a criminal case. That should certainly not be the criterion for unjust sackings.
Yes, isn't this just the inverse of what people are complaining about i.e. a witch hunt against celebrities? Would there be any controversy if it was some nonentity who had been cleared of sex charges?
I think the further allegations were in fact a few recovered memories does not actually amout to very much new evidence.
I think there was a huge element of the CPS being caught up in the current climate and instead of making a realistic assessment did the Public Interest thing and threw it at the jury to actually deal with when IMO had they done their job correctly this would never have reached a jury.
Then it must have been their judgement that a) it was in the greater public interest and b) that there was still a reasonable probability that they could secure a conviction. If there were screams and howlings of outrage very time a defendant was found innocent then there would be a huge turnover of CPS lawyers and senior management and the system would collapse.
This comes across as a witch hunt against Starmer and the CPS just because some celebrity was involved in a criminal case. That should certainly not be the criterion for unjust sackings.
I agree, however the CPS has to be very careful indeed that in bending over backwards to leave no stone upturned they go much too far in the other direction.
Should any prosecutor be sacked for doing their job? Err. No.
This case would have gone through a number of Detectives from Constable to Chief Inspector rank, as well as through the CPS specialist sexual offence prosecutors. It was obviously felt that the evidence given required a court to make the decision.
Well whoever is responsible, these are the facts:-
I don't get why people are being prosecuted when there is no evidence of any kind, except one person's word against another.
It means you could accuse anyone of anything, and they could theoretically be prosecuted ~ or does it just apply to alleged sex abuse cases, and not to say, alleged theft ?
Are you seriously saying that a blog is stating 'the facts'?
A statement (or more likely an interview) from the 'victim' is evidence.
In answer to your last question, sexual offences are quite unique in that they are often persued when it is one persons word against another. This is to allow the final decision to made by a court of law, due to the seriousness of the accusation. The evidence is still reviewed before charge however, to ensure that it appears to be genuine. Is it a perfect method? No. Is it the fairest, most reasonable? Probably.
I agree, however the CPS has to be very careful indeed that in bending over backwards to leave no stone upturned they go much too far in the other direction.
This is one of those cases, and there will no doubt be others, where it's a no win situation for the CPS. They'll either get accused of ignoring the rights of a victim just because a celebrity's involved or be accused of going after a defendant just because they are a celebrity.
The system in the UK isn't perfect by any means but it's definitely better than summary justice or state controlled "justice" and what's going on in Russia these days is an example of the latter.
Apart from the fact that there is no innocent verdict.
Guilty - Did it.
Not Guilty - There is, at least reasonable, doubt that they did not do it.
If there was absolutely no question about their innocence there would have probably been sufficient evidence to prove it before it even came to trial.
This kind of semantics annoys me. The only reason we have 'not guilty' as opposed to 'innocent' verdict is because the latter does not have to be proved. The latter is PRESUMED. A verdict of innocent is unnecessary.
Surely any repercussions should be on Alison Levitt? Wasn't it her decision to prosecute?
I don't think resignations are called for but I would hope someone would have a sharp word with Levitt to get her act together.
I keep wondering how much money La Vell has lost in wages and legal costs. Do we know?
Alison Levitt will take some flack, quite rightly, and with any luck people will feel more able to criticise other odd decisions she's made. But she did what Starmer wanted her to do, setting aside her own brilliant legal ability and her own real opinion, and if it wasn't her that he used as a scapegoat it would have been someone else. Both as bad as each other.
Where the only evidence is the allegation, surely it is better for the decision as to whose testimony is the most credible to be taken by a jury than by CPS lawyer?
I think the question is supposed to be whether there is enough concrete evidence to convict as opposed to deciding which party provides the more appealing, albeit uncollaborated testimony.
The DPP should resign because someone is found not guilty?
Are you for real?
If say, some random work colleague accused you of sexual assault for no good reason, obviously without any credible evidence and you went through two years of hell before being found not guilty, you wouldn't mind ?
I think the further allegations were in fact a few recovered memories does not actually amout to very much new evidence.
I think there was a huge element of the CPS being caught up in the current climate and instead of making a realistic assessment did the Public Interest thing and threw it at the jury to actually deal with when IMO had they done their job correctly this would never have reached a jury.
You have identified the facts 100% correctly. The only thing you've missed ,and you might not be aware of it, is that it was solely because he was a celebrity that they even reviewed it, and again, it was the celebrity thing that made them decide to prosecute. Pure weakness and profligacy on Starmer's part. A robust DPP would have had the integrity to stand by his Chief Prosecutor's correct decisions.
Comments
BIB. Well no, they didn't actually. In 2012 the CPS decided, quite properly, that there was no realistic chance of a conviction. Then Savilegate happened and Keir Starmer wanted to be seen to be Doing Something. So he told Alison Levitt QC to Do Something. So she decided that the DPP should Decide That The CPS Had Got This Decision Wrong, and he did, and he ordered it to be opened again.
Hence this thread about the lack of integrity, and the profligacy of Keir Starmer.
It is the CPS's job to assess the evidence before deciding to send it to trial. Only cases where there is evidence that a conviction is probable based on evidence should be sent to trial. If they are merely evidence gatherers then why have them at all.?
Not "probable", - a realistic chance of, and in the public interest.
Well yes because their prosecution lawyers had a look at the case in detail and thought that they ought in the end to proceed based on the evidence before them. Those lawyers do not know, and nor should they ever know, how a jury will respond to what's put before them. That's how the system works - defendants are either found guilty or innocent by a jury and it just so happens that this was a high profile acquittal.
I go back to my original point - the real issue ought to be about defendant anonymity especially where the charges are highly controversial.
Benjamani's point still holds though.
Sorry, I do this sort of stuff for a job. The CPS lawyers decided there was no realistic prospect of a conviction. Levitt and Starmer decided to re-open the file and go for it, purely for political ends.
But why have trials at all if we only prosecute the cases the crown will probably win? May as well do away with them and juries and go straight to a conviction. As I said, it's a balancing act where the CPS have to weigh up their realistic chances and put it to a jury to decide. On this occasion, they got it dead wrong.
thats not quite true, the accuser made further allegations which added to the evidence they had previously decided was not enough, then the case was reviewed, it wasnt reviewed on the basis of the original evidence only
No they didn't, they had further allegations to consider on review.
Then it must have been their judgement that a) it was in the greater public interest and b) that there was still a reasonable probability that they could secure a conviction. If there were screams and howlings of outrage very time a defendant was found innocent then there would be a huge turnover of CPS lawyers and senior management and the system would collapse.
This comes across as a witch hunt against Starmer and the CPS just because some celebrity was involved in a criminal case. That should certainly not be the criterion for unjust sackings.
"Pupils" plural means there's more likely to be corroboration, of course.
Apart from the fact that there is no innocent verdict.
Guilty - Did it.
Not Guilty - There is, at least reasonable, doubt that they did not do it.
If there was absolutely no question about their innocence there would have probably been sufficient evidence to prove it before it even came to trial.
I think the further allegations were in fact a few recovered memories does not actually amout to very much new evidence.
I think there was a huge element of the CPS being caught up in the current climate and instead of making a realistic assessment did the Public Interest thing and threw it at the jury to actually deal with when IMO had they done their job correctly this would never have reached a jury.
Yes, isn't this just the inverse of what people are complaining about i.e. a witch hunt against celebrities? Would there be any controversy if it was some nonentity who had been cleared of sex charges?
Quite possibly..
I agree, however the CPS has to be very careful indeed that in bending over backwards to leave no stone upturned they go much too far in the other direction.
This case would have gone through a number of Detectives from Constable to Chief Inspector rank, as well as through the CPS specialist sexual offence prosecutors. It was obviously felt that the evidence given required a court to make the decision.
Are you seriously saying that a blog is stating 'the facts'?
A statement (or more likely an interview) from the 'victim' is evidence.
In answer to your last question, sexual offences are quite unique in that they are often persued when it is one persons word against another. This is to allow the final decision to made by a court of law, due to the seriousness of the accusation. The evidence is still reviewed before charge however, to ensure that it appears to be genuine. Is it a perfect method? No. Is it the fairest, most reasonable? Probably.
This is one of those cases, and there will no doubt be others, where it's a no win situation for the CPS. They'll either get accused of ignoring the rights of a victim just because a celebrity's involved or be accused of going after a defendant just because they are a celebrity.
The system in the UK isn't perfect by any means but it's definitely better than summary justice or state controlled "justice" and what's going on in Russia these days is an example of the latter.
I don't think resignations are called for but I would hope someone would have a sharp word with Levitt to get her act together.
I keep wondering how much money La Vell has lost in wages and legal costs. Do we know?
This kind of semantics annoys me. The only reason we have 'not guilty' as opposed to 'innocent' verdict is because the latter does not have to be proved. The latter is PRESUMED. A verdict of innocent is unnecessary.
Alison Levitt will take some flack, quite rightly, and with any luck people will feel more able to criticise other odd decisions she's made. But she did what Starmer wanted her to do, setting aside her own brilliant legal ability and her own real opinion, and if it wasn't her that he used as a scapegoat it would have been someone else. Both as bad as each other.
I think the question is supposed to be whether there is enough concrete evidence to convict as opposed to deciding which party provides the more appealing, albeit uncollaborated testimony.
If say, some random work colleague accused you of sexual assault for no good reason, obviously without any credible evidence and you went through two years of hell before being found not guilty, you wouldn't mind ?
Yes I am for real.
You have identified the facts 100% correctly. The only thing you've missed ,and you might not be aware of it, is that it was solely because he was a celebrity that they even reviewed it, and again, it was the celebrity thing that made them decide to prosecute. Pure weakness and profligacy on Starmer's part. A robust DPP would have had the integrity to stand by his Chief Prosecutor's correct decisions.