Michael Le Vell's accuser
This despite the fact that not a shred of credible evidence had been produced and her story had varied depending on who she spoke to!
I would imagine that’s not uncommon among complainants of child sexual assault, and that’s not surprising when you consider the nature of the crime and the victim.
These trials aren’t supposed to be death matches in which whoever “loses” gets their life and reputation destroyed. “Naming and shaming” or mob justice would only discourage victims of sexual assault from reporting their assaults to police. If there is a legitimate case for perjury, the CPS should consider it, but just because the defendant was acquitted it doesn’t mean the complainant or any other witness lied.Posted 4 years agothe teaboyMember
CaptainFlashheart – Member
Neither party should be named unless there is guilt, or unless either party chooses to be named.
I disagree. If a name is public, other (alleged!) victims may realise that they’re not alone and may come forward, eg Jimmy Savile and that taxi driver (can’t remember his name).
It’s a very, very difficult one.Posted 4 years agoscotroutesSubscriber
the teaboy sums it up quite well. Thing is, each case is supposed to be judged on its merits. That’s why we don’t have a list of previous convictions read out in court. Having a backlog of other alleged victims should make no difference to a trial in progress.Posted 4 years agojimsterMember
Police/CPS evidence wouldn’t be based on “He had sex with me” without colloborative evidence.
Who was prosecuting, if it was a HCA (pseudo-Barrister) they consider it as an “Ah well, better luck next time” case especially as he would employ a top-notch defence barrister who specializes in this sort of work.
[cynic]Quite an achievement to find 12 people who don’t watch Coronation St/know who the accused is in Manchester[/cynic]
And the guilty tend to thank the jury…..Posted 4 years agothe teaboyMember
Thing is, each case is supposed to be judged on its merits. That’s why we don’t have a list of previous convictions read out in court. Having a backlog of other alleged victims should make no difference to a trial in progress.
Possibly but what’s the prosecution and sentencing based on?
If it was one victim, Stuart Hall would not have been prosecuted and, even if he had, would not have received a custodial sentence.Posted 4 years agokiloSubscriber
the teaboy sums it up quite well. Thing is, each case is supposed to be judged on its merits. That’s why we don’t have a list of previous convictions read out in court.
You can, in certain cases, have bad character evidence including previous cons addmitted as evidencePosted 4 years agomrmonkfingerMember
No, she shouldn’t be named. Many good reasons are given already in this thread.
However I do think there should be the possibility of charging an accuser – providing that thay can be shown beyond reasonable doubt (etc), to have lied and fabricated a case for their own ends. Whether of not that’s the case here, I have no idea, and it would be for the police/CPS to decide. A case where the defendant is acquitted through weak evidence, i.e. not beyond reasonable doubt, doesn’t automatically mean the accuser should be banged up for perjury or blackmail or libel or whatever.Posted 4 years ago
Its a really difficult balancing act here as you have to weigh up conflicting rights
Often the accused is named to attract other victims into the open – none came forward in this case.
Also , as this thread shows,some will think it was lack of evidence rather than lack of doing the act so , in some peoples eyes, he will always be an accused sex offender rather than an innocent man.
Not sure how we prevent this damage tbh
As for naming the “victim” I cannot see what good will come of this tbh
If she is making up stories like this [ or it actually happened an no one believed here] she has enough issues to deal with without having her character publicly eviscerated by the media.
I worked with someone accused of abuse by his ex wife during a bitter divorce case. Despite being found innocent some staff would still not work with him or talk to him 3 years later. He was certainly a victim of crime and oad a huge price for a false allegation.
It very tough to make rules that cover it all as we all want the innocent protected and the guilty sent downPosted 4 years ago
I dont have an answer as to how we balance these conflicting rights/responsibilitiesCountZeroMember
And the age of consent in Madagascar is 21, so for the uneducated that think paedophiles have something to do with age of consent, he’s a paedophile.
Not sure what point you’re trying to make here; there are a number of countries where age of sexual consent is 14:Posted 4 years ago
I think the CPS prosecuted this case knowing evidence was weak, to provide the public with evidence that they are effective in these type of cases. The reality is that the recent Rochdale et al abuse cases, showed that in more complex cases they have been found wanting. Excellent recent ‘file on 4’ programme on this very subject.Posted 4 years agoBoardinBobSubscriber
A girl that lived two doors down from me when I was growing up decided to phone up childline one day and tell them a teacher was abusing her. She didn’t give her name but they (childline) somehow worked out who she was. They alerted the police, teacher was arrested and suspended and an investigation took place. She eventually admitted it was complete nonsense but by that point the damage was done. The guy’s reputation was in tatters. He was a bit eccentric so the knee jerk reaction was to assume he was guilty just because he was a bit odd. He had to leave the school and relocate his family elsewhere to try and start again.Posted 4 years ago
CPS depending on area will run these cases on next to no evidence with out supporting evidence. historically we had a problem with these cases not being prosecuted because they are often difficult to win CPS and the police were criticised for this mow the pendulum has swung the other way.
Like many other public services CPS now are proactively managed by targets and imposed criteria more suitable to selling insurance or washing machines. Losing a case in court or convicting an innocent man is a better outcome for cps management than withdrawing a case which does not count as “an offence brought to justice.”
On the original point if the victim can be shown to have lied she may well be prosecuted but that is unlikely to be the scenario . We presume innocence and require the prosecution to prove their case so the jury are sure of all elements of the offence . All we know in this matter is that 12 people could not be sure that she was telling the truth , if they thought she was probably telling the truth then their verdict would have to be not guilty.
That is why we don’t name shame and humiliate her because to do so may well penalise some one who has done no wrong.
What right minded victim of crime would ever speak up if they knew that unless they could convince 12 strangers beyond reasonable doubt then they would be the one punished.Posted 4 years ago
All we know in this matter is that 12 people could not be sure that she was telling the truth , if they thought she was probably telling the truth then their verdict would have to be not guilty.
I get your point but we dont really know that they thought do we? They may have all thought she was lying. Furthermore your version leaves the accused as no longer innocent and simply as not proven.Posted 4 years ago
As I said earlier it is difficult to balance the innocent accused rights v the victim. We all know very few sex offences , including rape, lead to a prosecution.
I dont have the answers no one does
junkyard it’s not my version it is our system . He started presumed to be innocent his guilt has not been proven so he remains innocent. The criminal law involves an after the event assessment by people who were not there at the time ,of actions based on witness narrative and forensic deduction it will rarely achieve any accurate conclusion as to all the facts. So we are left in the end with saying we will not penalise someone unless the evidence makes us sure of guilt and if we cannot be sure we acquit.
We don’t ask the jurors what they really thought as that simply unpicks the whole debate again and leads to endless rehashes also the sanctity of the jury room allows them to deal with the issues honestly to express their views openly within the group and then be protected afterwards.Posted 4 years ago
He started presumed to be innocent his guilt has not been proven so he remains innocent.
Yes innocent is very much different from what you originally suggested were they were not sure but erred on his side due to doubt.
Your version referred to your interpretation of what occurred
For sure many will think no smoke without fire hence why it such a difficult balancing act.Posted 4 years ago
” All we know in this matter is that 12 people could not be sure that she was telling the truth” means what it says ” all we know ” is a key part of the statement. We do not know where the jurors fell on the range of belief from sure of innocence to strongly believing in guilt but entering a reasonable doubt . Nor do we know if the jurors all were at the same point . All we can ever know with a not guilty verdict is that the jury were not sure of guilt as that is the question the law asks them. It is not my interpretation it is the law. I do not seek to imply any no smoke without fire guilt by accusation . The point is you cannot prosecute a witness for perjury off the back of a not guilty verdict because that verdict does not mean the witness was in fact not telling the truth.Posted 4 years ago
The topic ‘Michael Le Vell's accuser’ is closed to new replies.