Should The Cps Be Seriously Examined Now?

[ToraToraTora]

After LeVell's acquittal should we seriously be asking the question as to what did the CPS have that made them think they had enough evidence to prosecute. I have also been on the wrong end of CPS incompetance, all be it for something relatively minor but I do wonder if the prejudice of their officers is overidding common sense. If you are going to drag a man through this ordeal for 2 years for a crime as serious as this you should be pretty sure of the evidence and reasonably sure of a succesful prosecution. If the jury can see nothing to make them consider a guilty verdict then surely so should the legal "experts" at the CPS.

[mikey4444]

AOG...good question but I think it is the non-identification of the accuser that will prevent her being possibly investigated by the Police for making, say, a malicious complaint. We don't know how old the person is now but I am presuming that she is over the age of 16 now, so it is possible that she could be charged. I am not holding my breath however.

[ToraToraTora]

yes octavius she wasn't on trial but I think AOG has a point. It seems odd that the power to destroy a mans life rests on the word of a teen age girl alone. If nothing happens then others will no doubt use this weapon to drag other innocent men through the mud when said man has in some way annoyed them. Terrifying!

[andy-hughes]

These are always difficult cases, and the CPS is bound by its remit to prosecute cases where it believes it to be 'In the public interest to proceed'.

That is such a loaded concept and decisions are often made based on evidence which is not revealed to the public.

I know that the CPS is not in the business of bringing charges, with attendent costs and publicity, against anyone unless it believes it has a reasonable chance of securing a conviction.

That indicates that there has been far more to this case than may initially appear to be the case - 'Child fantasises about famous actor abusing her - is believed - actor prosecuted - jury do not believe - case dismissed.

We will never know the whole truth, but the fact remains that in a trial by jury, Mr Turner has been found Not Guilty.

[mikey4444]

In answer to the last part of your post AOG, in an ideal world, the Police should be relied on to make an investigation and come to a conclusion on whether any allegation seems to be true or not. Its then up to the CPS to decided if a prosecution would be the public interest or not.

Savile has changed everything. Most of us have been shocked by this never ending stream of celebrity arrests, for me especially Rolf Harris, but Pandoras Box has been opened and I'm not sure if it can be closed again.

Its less than two years ago that Savile was being praised as a national hero, for his phenomenal charity work. A lot has happened in those few months.

[Octavius]

Maybe she was telling the truth, but the jury didn't believe her enough. We don't know for sure really, do we. I'm not saying he did it/or didn't, just that we can only 'presume' innocence from the evidence presented and verdict.

If the police feel that she has been lying all along, then maybe she might be bought to account, but its unlikely.

[Gromit]

mikey4444

The girl is now 17.

[rockyracoon]

That's what it sounds like Triggs. Unbelievable :(

[mikey4444]

Thanks gromit...not seen the girls age on the news.

[jno]

sounds like a good idea to me, triggs. Reduce the number of rape accusations to zero, reduce the police workload to zero, result! And they can get on with interrogating princes around Buckingham Palace and shooting Brazilians on the tube, which is what we pay them for.

[Zeuhl]

/will the person who made the allegations against Michael Le Vell get off 'scot-free'/

aog

the accuser has not been proven to be lying any more than Le Vell has been proven to be guilty

The lack of any corroborating evidence suggests no court proceedings would determine it either way

[Peter Pedant]

Whilst we are on the subject of acquittal of sexual offences
let us not forget that the defences costs a re hardly ever awarded

so that five days in court lucky lucky fellow
he will get a lawyers bill for not far south of £50 000