Technology0 min ago
Should The Cps Be Seriously Examined Now?
32 Answers
After LeVell's acquittal should we seriously be asking the question as to what did the CPS have that made them think they had enough evidence to prosecute. I have also been on the wrong end of CPS incompetance, all be it for something relatively minor but I do wonder if the prejudice of their officers is overidding common sense. If you are going to drag a man through this ordeal for 2 years for a crime as serious as this you should be pretty sure of the evidence and reasonably sure of a succesful prosecution. If the jury can see nothing to make them consider a guilty verdict then surely so should the legal "experts" at the CPS.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I'm also no great fan of the CPS. (I've known several people who've suffered as a result of their incompetence).
However I can see that they're often 'between a rock and a hard place'. If they prosecute someone because there's prima facie evidence of an offence (as with Michael Le Vell), and that person is subsequently acquitted, they get criticised. If they fail to prosecute someone when there's prima facie evidence of an offence (as with Jimmy Savile) they also get criticised.
However I can see that they're often 'between a rock and a hard place'. If they prosecute someone because there's prima facie evidence of an offence (as with Michael Le Vell), and that person is subsequently acquitted, they get criticised. If they fail to prosecute someone when there's prima facie evidence of an offence (as with Jimmy Savile) they also get criticised.
well whatever evidence they had it must have been unconvincing to the jury, hardly "prima facie".
jno, I don't but the jury listened to the whole case and I think their verdict was unanimous so I'd say that even if they thought he was guilty they had no reliable evidence to move them beyond reasonable doubt.
jno, I don't but the jury listened to the whole case and I think their verdict was unanimous so I'd say that even if they thought he was guilty they had no reliable evidence to move them beyond reasonable doubt.
Perhaps what really needs to be criticised is a legal system that takes so long to reach a conclusion? Of course the CPS needs time to prepare a case and, of course, the defence need time to prepare theirs but efficient working on both sides could see such a case brought to court in weeks (or, at the worst, a few months) rather than years.
As an aside, I find it interesting (and a positive thing) that mud no longer seems to stick like it used to. Peter Adamson (who played Len Fairclough in Coronation Street) was acquitted of indecent assault against children after both of his alleged victims repeatedly stated in court (as they'd done all along) that he'd not assaulted them. However he was never reinstated in his role and died penniless. Michael Le Vell, on the other hand, has already been invited to talks about rejoining Corrie.
As an aside, I find it interesting (and a positive thing) that mud no longer seems to stick like it used to. Peter Adamson (who played Len Fairclough in Coronation Street) was acquitted of indecent assault against children after both of his alleged victims repeatedly stated in court (as they'd done all along) that he'd not assaulted them. However he was never reinstated in his role and died penniless. Michael Le Vell, on the other hand, has already been invited to talks about rejoining Corrie.
I've been reading up on the CPS and it is confusing to me, the wording of their code alone seems to indicate that they got this decision to prosecute wrong.
http://
http://
I'm not sure that the CPS should be pilloried too much in this case. When the child involved has made such a serious allegation to the Police, it must be incumbent on the CPS to consider whether a charge should be made.
Due to the strict reporting restrictions imposed by the Judge, not all of the court proceedings have been made public, and never will. In order not to identify the child, most of La Vell's testimony was not reported. But there would appear to be no other evidence, such as forensic or independent identification which could be used in court.
So in the end, it came down to whether the evidence given by the child in court could be relied on and believed by the Jury. The onus is on the prosecution to prove their case, not for the defendant to prove his innocence. Its often the case that to throw doubt on the prosecution case, the defendant is best advised to take the witness stand.
Due to the strict reporting restrictions imposed by the Judge, not all of the court proceedings have been made public, and never will. In order not to identify the child, most of La Vell's testimony was not reported. But there would appear to be no other evidence, such as forensic or independent identification which could be used in court.
So in the end, it came down to whether the evidence given by the child in court could be relied on and believed by the Jury. The onus is on the prosecution to prove their case, not for the defendant to prove his innocence. Its often the case that to throw doubt on the prosecution case, the defendant is best advised to take the witness stand.
The Suns front page says it all.
It appears there was nothing apart from her word. It appears that is enough to destroy a man these days.
Without doubt the CPS decision to press ahead must have been because of Saville. Yes, yes I know he was arrested before, but the court case is recent so it must have had some bearing.
It appears there was nothing apart from her word. It appears that is enough to destroy a man these days.
Without doubt the CPS decision to press ahead must have been because of Saville. Yes, yes I know he was arrested before, but the court case is recent so it must have had some bearing.
in historical abuse cases there will often be no actual evidence or witnesses, but that doesn't mean that historical abusers should be exempt from prosecution. the CPS must decide which cases are most likely to secure a "successful" result based on the allegations, and the jury will have to make a decision based on the evidence given at trial.
January 2012
// Michael Le Vell is "very happy" after child sex abuse charges against him were dropped.
The 'Coronation Street' actor was holidaying abroad when he learned the allegations he molested a school girl several years ago would not be pursued further by police due to "insufficient evidence".
Michael's brother-in-law Ian Westcott told the Daily Mirror newspaper: "He's very happy. The family are too. He's doing OK."
Prosecutors in Manchester released a statement confirming the actor - who has played mechanic Kevin Webster in the soap for 27 years - will not be charged with any offence.
Referring to the star by his real name, Nazir Afzal, chief CPS prosecutor in the North West, said: "I have decided Michael Turner will not face any charges in relation to allegations of an historic sexual assault against a child. Following police inquiries I have concluded there is insufficient evidence to put before a court." //
Then the Saville sh*t hit the fan. The CPS were pressured to prosecute.
So no, the CPS got it right, then there was interference for them to change their mind.
// Michael Le Vell is "very happy" after child sex abuse charges against him were dropped.
The 'Coronation Street' actor was holidaying abroad when he learned the allegations he molested a school girl several years ago would not be pursued further by police due to "insufficient evidence".
Michael's brother-in-law Ian Westcott told the Daily Mirror newspaper: "He's very happy. The family are too. He's doing OK."
Prosecutors in Manchester released a statement confirming the actor - who has played mechanic Kevin Webster in the soap for 27 years - will not be charged with any offence.
Referring to the star by his real name, Nazir Afzal, chief CPS prosecutor in the North West, said: "I have decided Michael Turner will not face any charges in relation to allegations of an historic sexual assault against a child. Following police inquiries I have concluded there is insufficient evidence to put before a court." //
Then the Saville sh*t hit the fan. The CPS were pressured to prosecute.
So no, the CPS got it right, then there was interference for them to change their mind.
Reviews of the CPS' decisions shouldn't be prompted by high profile media cases.
There should be proper oversight where the decisions and the outcomes of them are reviewed probably on a quarterly basis and corrections to policy and guidance changed.
The editor of the Sun should not get to run the justice system
They certainly should ask whether the oversight system is adequate but sensationalising legal cases because people are famous then demanding bloody retribution against either convicted or the CPS is no way to behave
There should be proper oversight where the decisions and the outcomes of them are reviewed probably on a quarterly basis and corrections to policy and guidance changed.
The editor of the Sun should not get to run the justice system
They certainly should ask whether the oversight system is adequate but sensationalising legal cases because people are famous then demanding bloody retribution against either convicted or the CPS is no way to behave
The change of decision from there being insuffient evidence to proceeding to court was attributed to 'new evidence'.
As we now know, there wasn't really ANY evidence. Just her word against his.
The change of mind of the CPS was flawed, but they may having been reacting to the criticism they got for not persuing some of the Saville historical allegations. And lurched to the opposite extreme of having to thing thhey have to be seen to be acting when there isn't really any evidence to justify it.
As we now know, there wasn't really ANY evidence. Just her word against his.
The change of mind of the CPS was flawed, but they may having been reacting to the criticism they got for not persuing some of the Saville historical allegations. And lurched to the opposite extreme of having to thing thhey have to be seen to be acting when there isn't really any evidence to justify it.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.