News67 mins ago
Metropolitan Police Review Of Sex Case Evidence
http://
"The Metropolitan Police is launching a review of all ongoing sex crime investigations, after the collapse of two rape cases in a week"
Not before time it would seem !
"The Metropolitan Police is launching a review of all ongoing sex crime investigations, after the collapse of two rape cases in a week"
Not before time it would seem !
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. 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.
With respect Emmie, this isn't about have enough time.
Its very basic rules of evidence, something the Police shouldn't be getting wrong in the first place, it sticks of incompetence. Both the young men in these two cases could have had their lives ruined for ever......some might say that they already have....to a lesser degree.
What is needed here is what we used to call in BT, a complete "drains up" exercise.
Its very basic rules of evidence, something the Police shouldn't be getting wrong in the first place, it sticks of incompetence. Both the young men in these two cases could have had their lives ruined for ever......some might say that they already have....to a lesser degree.
What is needed here is what we used to call in BT, a complete "drains up" exercise.
"I dont see why the police are carrying the can on this as it is the CPS that takes the decisions - and that is not a rubber stamp"
You are off the mark, Peter, at least in the case of Liam Allan. The CPS make decisions based on the material they are presented with by the police. The police have a duty to hand to the CPS all material which they have gathered which may either assist the defence or undermine the prosecution (normally called "unused material"). They cannot conceal stuff which they have discovered which they think may not do their case much good. In the case of Mr Allan details of many thousands of text messages were in the possession of the police which clearly demonstrated that the alleged victim's story was a load of lies. It was the QC acting for the Crown in fact who revealed that material, brought it to the attention of the court and then offered no further evidence against Mr Allan.
This is nothing to do with so-called "cuts" or lack of resources. The officer-in-the-case was asked time and again about the material and he repeatedly responded by saying that it was of no relevance to the case. It would have been quicker (and more in line with his duty of disclosure) to simply hand it to the CPS than it would have been to respond to multiple enquiries about the same thing. His motive for acting the way he did is either that he wanted to secure a conviction at all costs (in which case he should be prosecuted for attempting to pervert the course of justice and/or misconduct in public office) or he was incredibly inept (in which case he should be sacked). There is no need for a "drains up" exercise. All police officers are (or should be) taught during basic training the rules surrounding their duty of disclosure.
You are off the mark, Peter, at least in the case of Liam Allan. The CPS make decisions based on the material they are presented with by the police. The police have a duty to hand to the CPS all material which they have gathered which may either assist the defence or undermine the prosecution (normally called "unused material"). They cannot conceal stuff which they have discovered which they think may not do their case much good. In the case of Mr Allan details of many thousands of text messages were in the possession of the police which clearly demonstrated that the alleged victim's story was a load of lies. It was the QC acting for the Crown in fact who revealed that material, brought it to the attention of the court and then offered no further evidence against Mr Allan.
This is nothing to do with so-called "cuts" or lack of resources. The officer-in-the-case was asked time and again about the material and he repeatedly responded by saying that it was of no relevance to the case. It would have been quicker (and more in line with his duty of disclosure) to simply hand it to the CPS than it would have been to respond to multiple enquiries about the same thing. His motive for acting the way he did is either that he wanted to secure a conviction at all costs (in which case he should be prosecuted for attempting to pervert the course of justice and/or misconduct in public office) or he was incredibly inept (in which case he should be sacked). There is no need for a "drains up" exercise. All police officers are (or should be) taught during basic training the rules surrounding their duty of disclosure.
According to this there is potential for many more cases to be looked at:
http://
In fact surely any case from this detective is now dubious and potentially needs to be quashed?
http://
In fact surely any case from this detective is now dubious and potentially needs to be quashed?
NJ.........correct at 13:00.
I have been listening to the "World at One", and it seems that this is entirely down to the Police, not the CPS. If the Police hide or hold back evidence from the CPS, and subsequently the Courts, then this is an extremely serious matter indeed.
AOG...what on earth are you on about now ?
YMB...I agree...any case that this Officer has been involved with should be immediately looked at.
I am now unsure if the same bad practise hasn't been occurring in other Police Forces in England and Wales ?
I have been listening to the "World at One", and it seems that this is entirely down to the Police, not the CPS. If the Police hide or hold back evidence from the CPS, and subsequently the Courts, then this is an extremely serious matter indeed.
AOG...what on earth are you on about now ?
YMB...I agree...any case that this Officer has been involved with should be immediately looked at.
I am now unsure if the same bad practise hasn't been occurring in other Police Forces in England and Wales ?
// It was the QC acting for the Crown in fact who revealed that material, brought it to the attention of the court and then offered no further evidence against Mr Allan. //
I am nearer the mark than people think
clearly the material was known to a few people - erm Allen and his accuser for a start
so allen would know if she were pestering him
the defence had been told there was material but that is was immaterial ( pun intended) -
I had read the defence applied for an order from the judge....
you will have to tell us if under these circumstances the prosecution has first look-see
I mean the courts may be full of prosecution lawyers leaning across to the defence and saying - "I think we have to acquit your client, dont you?"[ - I just dont kinda recollect it
Peter Taylor LJ was asked why he had imprisoned innocent Irish men for around 20 y - replied
it is not my fault if the Police choose to lie to me
I mean yeah - talk about taking ownership of a case !
I am nearer the mark than people think
clearly the material was known to a few people - erm Allen and his accuser for a start
so allen would know if she were pestering him
the defence had been told there was material but that is was immaterial ( pun intended) -
I had read the defence applied for an order from the judge....
you will have to tell us if under these circumstances the prosecution has first look-see
I mean the courts may be full of prosecution lawyers leaning across to the defence and saying - "I think we have to acquit your client, dont you?"[ - I just dont kinda recollect it
Peter Taylor LJ was asked why he had imprisoned innocent Irish men for around 20 y - replied
it is not my fault if the Police choose to lie to me
I mean yeah - talk about taking ownership of a case !
1 to 16 of 16
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles86 mins ago
ChatterBank102 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles133 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles157 mins ago
ChatterBank165 mins ago
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.