Nigel Evans, the CPS's 'execution attempt' and the over zealous police.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27007764

I can understand the blokes frustration, and that’s a massive legal bill, but criticism for investigating very serious allegations too ‘zealously’? Perhaps I’m missing something.

Missed the Chat Forum too.

I guess as he is innocent he feels victimised. If he was the victim I’d imagine he would be happy for zealous policework.

Yes but if he’s been cleared why should he have to pay his legal expenses, shouldn’t the CPS have to pay this???? or am I just being naieve?

He can claim up to the amount that would have been payable with legal aid.

It would be unworkable if only those able to afford the very best legal representation in the first place were able to claim the costs back for what is denied the rest of us by lack of wealth.

He chose an expensive brief, I believe he could apply to recover legal costs but only at the rate which would apply had legal aid been given.

He makes some interesting points. He can claim up to the amount legal aid would have paid from what I read. I’m guessing most people would go as far as they could to clear their name. What that costs does really depend on how much you can afford.

Given his is a politician and his party have cut Legal aid/set the rules perhaps he may wish to consider changing his political alignment?

Tory complaining about cuts when he is affected

I feel sorry for him for what he has been through , he ir right things will never be the same despite him being innocent, but i am struggling to stifle a laugh here tbh.

I’m not sure that his self righteous indignation is really justified. Hasn’t he been found to be a creepy arsehole rather than a rapist?

I agree that those accused but not convicted of sexual crimes should be able to maintain anonymity though.

people come to this forum to chat about bikes

if you want to bang on about other stuff, the place is here: http://singletrackworld.com/forum/forum/off-topic

It would be unworkable if only those able to afford the very best legal representation in the first place were able to claim the costs back for what is denied the rest of us by lack of wealth.

Although you’d have to suggest that his legal team were worth their money… 😉

people come to this forum to chat about bikes

if you want to bang on about other stuff, the place is here: http://singletrackworld.com/forum/forum/off-topic

🙄

someone get out of bed on the wrong side? Read the 2nd post grumpy.

people come to this forum to chat about bikes

if you want to bang on about other stuff, the place is here: http://singletrackworld.com/forum/forum/off-topic

Yeah, I reckon anonymity for the accused until found guilty is reasonable in these cases.

As I understand it the ‘over zealous’ allegation seems valid on two fronts;

i) Rather than prosecute on the basis of the complaint made, the police engaged a whole team of officers to hunt out other ‘victims’ from the past and persuade them to act as witnesses

ii) Those who gave evidence as witnesses then found themselves dragged into court as victims despite clearly telling the police that they did not think that they were victims and that no offence had taken place.

Now, you can see that happening in rare cases, perhaps victims of DV or similar who might be prone to bullying or coercion to drop their complaints, but for it to happen three times in the same case?

I can even see the other case going forward with the ‘others’ as witnesses – but to continue and prosecute separate charges in the case of the three people who openly said they had not been victims, I can’t see for one minute how they passed the probability test?

I definitely agree with anonymity for the accused, though not sure how possible that is in the current internet age. Also publicity can cause other victims to come forward, double edged sword.

This case does seem to have some post Savile over reaction. It seems the police actively went looking for other victims and persuaded some to make complaints who didn’t want to. It may be unpleasant, but one of the original charges of sexual assault related to him trying to kiss someone. Looking back at my single days, there more than a couple of ladies who could press charges when I’d misjudged a situation. Not sure negligent dating should be a crime, but also not sure where the line should be drawn.

allthepies – Member

He chose an expensive brief, I believe he could apply to recover legal costs but only at the rate which would apply had legal aid been given.

Level the field; cap the prosecution’s wage to the same level.

Sod it, cap all their wages, justice should not be for only those who can afford it.

From what I have heard of the case the guy is a predatory, drunken arsehole abusing his position of power,hope it bankrupts him.
Everyone was wringing their hands after Savile but how many of the high profile cases since has resulted in conviction when the defendant pleaded not guilty? Would it have been different if Savile were still alive and was being prosecuted? Should he have had anonymity so the police couldn’t have found other victims? No wonder alleged victims didn’t feel confident in reporting him especially when those that did were never followed up effectively.The current attack on the police and the CPS for now following up these type of cases by those with privilege ,wealth and power stinks.Historic cases were always going to be difficult to secure convictions ,let’s face it rape cases have an appallingly low conviction rate anyway.Looks to me that the rich and powerful can buy justice and are now closing ranks and saying don’t bother prosecuting us because we can afford justice but would much rather have our money in the bank and our reputation untarnished.
I won’t be losing sleep over any of them but will for their victims.

The seeking of other complainers wasn’t clear from the article I read, I dare say there are more detailed ones from during the trial.

It is common now in domestic violence enquiries for the police to make contact with previous partners of suspects (in Scotland anyway, where we need corroboration which can be provided using the Moorov principle). The difficulties in prosecuting/convicting when its one persons word against the others, as is usually the case for domestic violence and serious sexual offences, are probably almost as common in England as they are here.

Perhaps there is a question to be considered as to the credibility of the witnesses in this case – for the reasons you outline ninfan – but generally unless there is compelling reason to think they are not being truthful, court is the appropriate place to test their evidence surely. It’s well recognised these days that victims of certain crimes may not come forward for many years, if ever, and even then often with reluctance. Quite rightly we no longer dismiss people who speak about serious crimes many years later as making it up because they never reported it at the time.

nick1962, from here (telegraph)[/url]

But no one in this case had been subjected to sexual abuse. There were no victims. That had just been conclusively proved in a court of law. By the time Lancashire Constabulary’s formal statement appeared on the forces website, the word “victim” had been changed to “complainants”. Even though, as we’ve seen, almost all of the “complainants” weren’t complainants at all.

It would seem that your sympathy for the “victims” could be more usefully directed.

I don’t think Nigel Evans comes out of this as a saint, but legally speaking it is probably useful to have some sort of subtle gradation between drunken arsehole and rapist?

It would seem that your sympathy for the victims could be more usefully directed.

It is.I was referring to the other high profile cases,but they weren’t victims either because the defendents were found not guilty…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics
Nigel Evans by his own admission got drunk and groped people.That is not acceptable in any workplace let alone when it is being done by the deputy speaker of the House of Commons.

I guess as he is innocent

It may be tad pedantic but he was “not guilty” of the offences as we don’t have a “not proven” verdict South of the border. Innocent is not a verdict available though an award of defendants costs would have helped towards this assumption of innocence.

He does sound an unsavoury character though and asking for his expenses because he spent all his savings is just brass-necked.

Also publicity can cause other victims to come forward

Victims and gold diggers.

Spent his life savings? The poor chap will be destitute when he retires then – you have to feel sorry for him.

Oh hang on…

I could understand the ‘over-zealous’ policing, if it was applied universally. But it isn’t. It seems like the CPS has been determined to bring prosecutions against high profile cases, with little or no evidence. Yet when it comes to ordinary members of the public, the records of investigations into sexual assault and rape cases is absolutely woeful!

As for Nigel Evans? He just seems like a typical lecherous old goat that the House of Commons seems to be stuffed full of. Good article on exactly this by Marina Hyde yesterday

Welcome to Westminster. Where lecherous shysters get pissed at our expense

nick1962, I’m not arguing about the underreporting of rape and sexual assault and the woeful conviction rate.

But in this particular case many of the “victims” told the police and cps that they did not consider that they were victims and that as far as they were concerned no offence had taken place.

In addition the “rape” victim, when he got on the stand, basically said it was consensual sex.

So does the “zealous” pursuit of this case make things better or worse for future victims of sexual assault?

I’d say it makes the situation far worse, and the CPS (and maybe some people here) need to have a good hard look at themselves.

I live in his constituancy, and as always with these things I think there is more to this case than meets the eye.

A bit of backround:
This mainly rural area of Lancashire is currently being bombarded with planning applications from large developers and the vast majority of the local people are against these developments (not just NIMBYism we’re talking 500 – 1000 houses at a time, thus doubling the size of some villages). However the large developers have far larger resource at their disposal (legal teams etc) than the local parochial conservative council (who will want to be seen to be towing the party line re; house building). Consequently these planning applications are being given the go ahead. Causing local uproar.

Enter into the equation Nigel Evans. Local MP who, as deputy speaker must remain impartial and is not allowed to bring up constituancy issues in parliament. Under pressure from local constituents (who wanted their local MP to be fighting their corner), he began to speak out locally against the over development of the area and arranging meetings between groups against the developments and prominent members of the government. This allowed a bit of momentum to be gained

I’m not one for conspiricy theories as a rule, but his trial smacks of somebody/entity wanting him out of the way and I wonder what vested interests were at play?

eat the pudding
Surely it is the duty of the CPS to be zealous?
I’m not a legal expert, same as the Telegraph writer.I didn’t hear all the evidence and it does look like the police/CPS made mistakes.Victims don’t often realise they are victims(see the recent grooming cases).If the police/CPS think a crime may have occurred in these cases then let the victim tell the court what happened as they did.
Nigel Evan’s comments in the OP’s link are ridiculous.

People who were “dragged through the courts through no fault of their own” and then found not guilty should “get their legal fees back from the CPS budget”, Mr Evans said.

“Maybe that will make them focus on whether a case is worth pursuing.”
So let’s not prosecute rich people and let politicians put pressure on the CPS not to prosecute then!

“We need to consider the issue of a statute of limitations and look at how other countries deal with this,” he added.

Really?????

And he questioned the way prosecutors handled high-profile sex offence cases that dated back many years – also criticising the use of “bundling” – where police build a case against an accused using a number of weaker allegations.

It’s all about looking for patterns of behaviour surely? If Evans had his way then Savile wouldn’t even have gone to trial.

And in a seperate interview with the Sunday Mirror he said he would not seek to return to his deputy speaker role, focusing instead on being a constituency MP.

I think we all know why that is don’t we-he is unfit for the job.
Edit
eatthepudding
I do agree btw that this and the other crop of cases are doing nothing to help victims or to encourage reporting of such crimes.

It seems like the CPS has been determined to bring prosecutions against high profile cases, with little or no evidence. Yet when it comes to ordinary members of the public, the records of investigations into sexual assault and rape cases is absolutely woeful!

Binners, Yes, I think this is a real problem, a high profile case gets resources thrown at it without a problem to send the message that the police and CPS are taking crime seriously, but your average crime victims real world experience of too many crimes is often woefully inadequate resourcing and ‘no further action’ because they can’t prove it or a token sanction of a caution and slapped wrists. I also think there’s a big game of police and CPS being averse to taking hard decisions that might bite them on the arse, so its safer for their own careers to let a jury decide.

generally unless there is compelling reason to think they are not being truthful, court is the appropriate place to test their evidence surely.

I think thats entirely fair comment – however the problem in these cases is clearly that ‘no smoke without fire’ applies as long as anonymity is not given to suspects, The allegation alone is enough to destroy a career (anyone seen John Leslie on telly recently?) and even if someone is cleared, the damage is often done, plus its all too easy to turn it into a form of blackmail or revenge, particularly with famous people (look what happened to Neil and Christine Hamilton! (Though I’ll be they’ve been enjoying the Max Clifford trial…)

I don’t think there’s an easy solution to the problem of anonymity, there have clearly been cases where further victims have come forward, but it seems to have become a bit of a convenient fishing expedition recently – perhaps anonymity should be imposed unless an judge lifts it in the interest of justice where there is a real belief of further unreported victims?

As a Tory I presume he voted to cut legal aid.

It would be unworkable if only those able to afford the very best legal representation in the first place were able to claim the costs back for what is denied the rest of us by lack of wealth.

Tory MP = the rules that apply to us plebs don’t apply to them, donchaknow.

It was the Conservatives who (recently – last year) changed the rules on Legal Aid and defence fee recovery.

“Conservative MP in having to live by the same rules that they set for the rest of society and discovering they don’t like it and it’s massively unfair” shocker.

Nil sympathy for him I’m afraid – they’re the rules his party set for the rest of us. Criminal Legal Aid lawyers warned the Government it would be massively unfair on acquitted defendants. The Government ignored them.

Karma sometimes acts more quickly than one might think.

So he was found not guilty. So what? There would be little point in having courts if every single case was a “guilty”. THe CPS would then be criticised for only taking stonewallers to court.

“rape” victim, when he got on the stand, basically said it was consensual sex

He must have said differently in the statement he gave during the police enquiry. It is simply not possible to libel a charge of rape if the witness says in his statement that he consented to all the sex. Nor would it ever be recorded as a crime.

(I am of course assuming there are no age/mental capacity/unfit to consent etc. consideration that can render a person unable to consent in the legal sense).

Yep, the mind boggles at some of this. Yes, it is the CPS’s job to take people to court even if they’re not definitely guilty, that’s why we have courts rather than just letting the CPS hand out sentences.

No we shouldn’t pay your inflated legal costs, because… Ach, no point in even explaining why, it’s obvious to everyone.

Anonymity for the accused is always an interesting one though, sad truth is, mud sticks- people will always say “there’s no smoke without fire” or just forget the verdict and remember the accusation. Though I’m sure on any other day, a move in this direction would lead to a tide of complaints about how we’re soft on crime.

Innocent is not a verdict available though an award of defendants costs would have helped towards this assumption of innocence.

Your pedantry is misplaced. Innocence is the state we all enjoy in the absence of conviction.

I heard him on the radio yesterday saying how we ought to have a Statute of Limitations for offences, as per some other countries.

And as soon as he said it, I thought of the JS case – it been Radio 2…

ash.addy – Member
Yes but if he’s been cleared why should he have to pay his legal expenses, shouldn’t the CPS have to pay this???? or am I just being naieve?

perhaps his party shouldnt have brought in the massive cuts to legal aid then

blown through his savings!?, what would it do to the rest of us that dont have 130k in the bank?

as a Tory frontbencher, Mr Evans told the Commons his constituents were “rightly concerned” over the rising cost of legal aid budget and demanded “more value for the pounds that are spent”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/130000-poorer-in-fees-nigel-evans-admits-regret-for-past-support-of-legal-aid-cuts-9259579.html

I heard him on the radio yesterday saying how we ought to have a Statute of Limitations for offences, as per some other countries.

Seems a weird thing to say when all the allegations (none of which was proven to be criminal acts) were pretty recent. It wouldn’t have made a difference to his case.

Max Clifford jury back in…. verdict due soon!