I don’t think its correct or compelling enough to prosecute on her testimony alone.
To contextualise that for you, it means I am unhappy with the judicial system.

Thank you for the clarification. Given, as I said, that many (most?) trials involving rape and other sexual crimes, including paedophilia, will rely fundamentally or even wholly on the testimony of the victim, I don’t think many people would agree with you.

You appear to feel that if the judicial system was followed then all is right with the world. In fact in history this has proven to be the route to tyranny. Which happily is why we have parliament and amendment to laws etc.

It’s generally accepted that it is the rule of law, as enforced through a judicial system, that is the main protection against tyranny and of the rights of individual citizens, e.g. Magna Carta, judicial review etc. I am not aware of any tyrannies that have originated in a nation’s judicial system – the typical modus operandi of tyrannies is to neuter, disband or subvert the judicial system once it has gained power, rather than to come to power via the judicial system.

And pornography. I always found it weird that you can legally have sex at 16 but have to wait another two years before you can watch someone else doing it. You could’ve had two kids by the time you’re 18.

Perhaps the thought is that in those two years you’ll gain enough diverse experience to not be traumatised by what you’ll find in the murky world of pornography.

🙂

I don’t think its correct or compelling enough to prosecute on her testimony alone.
To contextualise that for you, it means I am unhappy with the judicial system.

I think normally the UK Judicial system is pretty good. However there’s something about the media pressure when accusations are made against celebs that mean trials are held where the evidence wouldn’t normally support a trial.

If you put people on trial with rubbish evidence, sometimes juries get it wrong and mistaken guilty verdicts occur. Juries have convicted people of witchcraft. Witchcraft is a crime where, by definition, the only evidence is people’s testimony which goes to show that even with rubbish evidence sometimes the prosecution get lucky. (Indeed, witch trials stopped precisely because people thought convicting people on other people’s testimony alone was utterly unsafe. They still believed in witches, people still accused people of witchcraft, they just found there was never any good evidence of guilt.)

And pornography. I always found it weird that you can legally have sex at 16 but have to wait another two years before you can watch someone else doing it. You could’ve had two kids by the time you’re 18.

And appearing in pornography. Two 16 year olds can have a sex to their hearts content. But if they get their camera out it’s sex offenders register time….

I think normally the UK Judicial system is pretty good. However there’s something about the media pressure when accusations are made against celebs that mean trials are held where the evidence wouldn’t normally support a trial.

If you put people on trial with rubbish evidence, sometimes juries get it wrong and mistaken guilty verdicts occur. Juries have convicted people of witchcraft. Witchcraft is a crime where, by definition, the only evidence is people’s testimony which goes to show that even with rubbish evidence sometimes the prosecution get lucky. (Indeed, witch trials stopped precisely because people thought convicting people on other people’s testimony alone was utterly unsafe. They still believed in witches, people still accused people of witchcraft, they just found there was never any good evidence of guilt.

Exactly

However there’s something about the media pressure when accusations are made against celebs that mean trials are held where the evidence wouldn’t normally support a trial.

Please give us some examples of cases where this has happened and it was generally accepted after a not guilty verdict that the evidence was never strong enough in the first place to justify going to trial. If anything, recent cases involving the likes of Cliff Richard and Greville Janner suggest that the CPS do not act as you say (whereas the Police investigation of Cliff Richard and some others has appeared to be influenced by the media or consideration of the media response).

If you put people on trial with rubbish evidence, sometimes juries get it wrong and mistaken guilty verdicts occur.

If by ‘rubbish evidence’ you mean evidence that is patently false/unreliable and cannot stand up under scrutinity, then I would be confident that it would be exposed as such in court during the examination and cross-examination of the witnesses. If you have examples of cases where the jury accepted clearly false/unreliable evidence and convicted someone as a result, please let us have them.

However, if by ‘rubbish evidence’ you mean evidence that appears in court to be generally reliable, but is subsequently found to be unreliable or false because investigation reveals it to have been perjury or an expert witness giving incorrect statements (as happened with Professor Sir Roy Meadow in Sally Clark’s trial), then I don’t think it’s right to put the blame on the jury and simply say they got it wrong: they tried the case on the evidence that was presented.

If by ‘rubbish evidence’ you mean evidence that is patently false/unreliable and cannot stand up under scrutinity, then I would be confident that it would be exposed as such in court during the examination and cross-examination of the witnesses. If you have examples of cases where the jury accepted clearly false/unreliable evidence and convicted someone as a result, please let us have them.

However, if by ‘rubbish evidence’ you mean evidence that appears in court to be generally reliable, but is subsequently found to be unreliable or false because investigation reveals it to have been perjury or an expert witness giving incorrect statements (as happened with Professor Sir Roy Meadow in Sally Clark’s trial), then I don’t think it’s right to put the blame on the jury and simply say they got it wrong: they tried the case on the evidence that was presented.

By rubbish evidence I mean, for instance, “outofbreath claims slowster touched my ball sack when I was 15”, then you prove you were in orbit around the moon for the whole year when I was 15 and I change my story and claim it was when I was 14. That evidence should not be enough to see you in court, even if a jury might buy it if it’s presented with several other accusations.

If anything, recent cases involving the likes of Cliff Richard and Greville Janner suggest that the CPS do not act as you say

Agree, I think policy has changed in recent years – I suspect they realized it was blatantly unjust.

Mind you, you’ve picked two odd cases to cite as examples. Greville Janner was unfit to plead and Cliff is wealthy enough to intimidate the CPS with the threat of a first class defence team. (Which, I suspect, is why at the height of the celeb-groper-hysteria we didn’t see ‘A’ List 60’s rock stars in the dock for their groupie indiscretions in the days when 15 year old girls were ‘grown ups’ with full time jobs.)

By rubbish evidence I mean, for instance, “outofbreath claims slowster touched my ball sack when I was 15”, then you prove you were in orbit around the moon for the whole year when I was 15 and I change my story and claim it was when I was 14. That evidence should not be enough to see you in court, even if a jury might buy it if it’s presented with several other accusations.

Thank you for clarifying. Please provide some examples of actual cases where rubbish evidence of the kind you describe has resulted in the CPS deciding to prosecute.

Agree, I think policy has changed in recent years – I suspect they realized it was blatantly unjust.

You’ve changed your position from one of saying that “there’s something about the media pressure when accusations are made against celebs that mean trials are held where the evidence wouldn’t normally support a trial” to now saying that that is what used to happen. Again, would you please give some examples of cases where this did use to happen.

you’ve picked two odd cases to cite as examples

They came to mind as the two most obvious recent high profile cases where the CPS came under a great deal of media attention and even outright pressure and criticism, despite which they took decisions that appeared to be based on their standard criteria (better than 50% probability of conviction, in the the public interest etc.).

There have been other high profile celeb type cases, e.g. Dave Lee Travis, but I cannot think of any that support your argument. I don’t think there is any evidence whatsoever that the CPS was influenced by Cliff Richard’s ability to pay for the best legal defence team possible: if anything, it looked like the Police made a mess of the investigation, as they also seemingly did with Paul Gambaccini.

Thank you for clarifying. Please provide some examples of actual cases where rubbish evidence of the kind you describe has resulted in the CPS deciding to prosecute.

One of the charges against Rolf Harris. (I’m going from memory so detail might be wrong) A woman claimed he assaulted her at an end of show party in late summer and the trauma gave her some kind of eating disorder or some such. The defence pointed out that her disorder had shown itself at the beginning of summer. So she changed the story and claimed the assault was weeks earlier. (I’m not saying she’s wrong, merely offering you the example of ‘rubbish evidence’ you asked for.)

You’ve changed your position from one of saying that “there’s something about the media pressure when accusations are made against celebs that mean trials are held where the evidence wouldn’t normally support a trial” to now saying that that is what used to happen.

I should have used past tense in my original comment, sorry.

Again, would you please give some examples of cases where this did use to happen.

The “room service girl” charge against Stuart Hall. (Yes, I know what you’re going to say, and it’s irrelevant to the point.) The “Fareham” charge against Rolf Harris. At least one of the charges against Dave Lee Travis (mind you I only remember two of the charges).

I don’t think there is any evidence whatsoever that the CPS was influenced by Cliff Richard’s ability to pay for the best legal defence team possible: if anything, it looked like the Police made a mess of the investigation, as they also seemingly did with Paul Gambaccini.

Maybe or maybe CR and PG were both totally innocent.

I’ve yet to discard my theory that the A List celebs with big money were left alone because they could afford a good defence. You say there’s no evidence. There’s *some* circumstantial evidence, isn’t there, like the fact no A List rock stars were put on trial even though they were active at a time when you left school at 15. As John Peel said, I doubt they were checking ID.

One of the charges against Rolf Harris. (I’m going from memory so detail might be wrong) A woman claimed he assaulted her at an end of show party in late summer and the trauma gave her some kind of eating disorder or some such. The defence pointed out that her disorder had shown itself at the beginning of summer. So she changed the story and claimed the assault was weeks earlier.

Fair enough. On that point it sounds like the Police investigation was not sufficiently rigorous, and even if they failed to challenge the inconsistency when interviewing the witness during the investigation, ideally the CPS would have spotted it when reviewing the file and deciding whether to prosecute. However, I presume that there was a great deal of evidence to investigate and review for the multiple charges, so I think it’s less significant than if that particular witness/charge had been the only evidence/case for which Rolf Harris was tried.

The “room service girl” charge against Stuart Hall. (Yes, I know what you’re going to say, and it’s irrelevant to the point.) The “Fareham” charge against Rolf Harris. At least one of the charges against Dave Lee Travis (mind you I only remember two of the charges).

I think you are probably better informed of the specific details of those cases than I am, but again I note that for each of these individuals these were one charge out of many, so I find it less surprising that the charge was added to the others only for the unreliability of that particular evidence/witness to be exposed in court.

Maybe or maybe CR and PG were both totally innocent.

When I said it seemed the Police made a mess of the investigations, I didn’t mean that they were probably guilty and the Police were at fault for failing to investigate properly and gather the necessary evidence for the CPS to charge, but rather that the Police conduct of the investigations was improper (tipping off the BBC to the raid on Cliff Richard’s home, and seemingly dragging out Gambaccini’s investigation in the hope that the publicity might encourage other accusers to come forward, rather than actually undertaking the investigation of the allegation that had been made against him in a proper and reasonably timely manner).

I’ve yet to discard my theory that the A List celebs with big money were left alone because they could afford a good defence. You say there’s no evidence. There’s *some* circumstantial evidence, isn’t there, like the fact no A List rock stars were put on trial even though they were active at a time when you left school at 15. As John Peel said, I doubt they were checking ID.

I think that the prosecutions of D List presenters and DJs etc. that have happened have mostly involved sexual advances and assaults that were neither expected nor welcomed, whereas possibly it was less straightforward in the past with the groupies and fans who possibly welcomed the advances from A List rock stars. I suspect that such cases did present dilemmas for the Police – not in terms of fear of the legal defence team that immense wealth could buy, but rather in terms of getting evidence if the young person did not want to cooperate and in terms of the Police force itself probably reflecting the general societal attitudes of the day, which were evolving (i.e. until we get to the point where it is widely accepted that even if an underage person ‘welcomes’ and even sets out to attract such sexual advances from an A List rock star, they are underage and cannot consent). I think Bill Wyman and Mandy Smith was a case in point, which probably would be treated differently today by the Police (and be regarded today by many more members of public as criminal behaviour).