Michael La Vell Not Guilty

[hc4361]

Of first charge.

[albaqwerty]

Regarding Minty's question, is there some law in this country when someone is found not guilty, can they sue the accuser?

I read an earlier post regarding the difference between not guilty and innocent.
A valid point I thought.
I hate the Scottish term 'Not Proven'

[emmie]

sir prize i think that sp is being rather ironic, i could be wrong...

[hc4361]

sir.prize, sp isn't making fun. He is making a very valid point of what would happen if the victim was named either before or after the trial, whether the accused was guilty or not.

[Octavius]

"It is common knowledge who this girl is"

Why do people keep saying this? It isn't 'common knowledge'.

[sp1814]

As far as I'm concerned, if someone has been found not guilty, then they are not guilty. There are some who say that this man's life has been ruined. I am not sure that it has. The who 'smoke without fire' brigade should be ignored. He has been found not guilty, and that should be that.

By the way - anonymity for defendants in rape and sexual abuse trials is not such a good idea.

Operation Yewtree has shown us that abusers don't just do it once...there is always a pattern of abuse. You keep names secret, and the opportunity to discover that pattern is lost.

[sp1814]

sir.prize

Stop trying to score points and read the tone of my post.

[murraymints]

Albs..it may stop false accusations s if some form of redress was available....I applaud historical cases being brought when valid....but...how many are now financially motivated by the Jimmy saville business !

[jackthehat]

........and neither should it be!

Which is why at least 3 people have been in trouble with the Police for naming her, or at least, providing enough hints for it to be worked out!

[hc4361]

No, there isn't, albaquerty. As much as we might like to believe otherwise it is not the accuser who brings the matter to court - it is the police and CPS. That is why criminal cases are always R v Bloggs, not Victim v Bloggs.

Imagine if it were possible to sue the accuser if you were found not guilty - who on earth would ever report anything to the police, knowing they could be sued?

[sir.prize]

Octavius - while it may not be 'common knowledge' there are lots and lots of people who will now know her identity. Think about it

[jake-the-peg]

Alba you can hardly prosecute the accuser for failing to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt

You'd have to show conspiracy to pervert or perjury or soome such

They could in theory I think still bring a civil case where the standard of proof is lower and win damages

[emmie]

hc, good point, you wouldn't. And alluding to the person wasn't right then and it still isn't.

[murraymints]

Well...leave the man be ..he has been tried by a jury of peers and found innocent...let him get on with life I say !

[hc4361]

I very much hope he is back at work soon. Normality will be the best thing for him now.

[Octavius]

"Octavius - while it may not be 'common knowledge' there are lots and lots of people who will now know her identity. Think about it"

Honestly sir.prize, what would I gain from knowing ?

[sir.prize]

Fully agree murraymints. Hopefully the accuser will not come back for a third try.

[albaqwerty]

I can understand why the accused is named in these sort of cases, having had a think about it, it might help aid the prosecution if other victims were to feel that their assault was believed, and identifying them wouldn't help anyone.

[jackthehat]

I am at a loss as to why people are so anxious to know exactly who the girl is.........what difference does it make?

[hc4361]

alba, I very much support open justice. Secret arrests and secret trials are not good for the country. As it is at the moment anybody can walk in to most trials and watch justice in action. Justice must be seen to be done.

[viv38]

I am not 'anxious' to know who she is, but her lies nearly ruined an innocent man - why should she get away with that ??!