Jokes1 min ago
Dlt...what Are The Cps Playing At?
21 Answers
that's three dragged through the courts no conviction, surely the CPS have a duty to make sure there is a case before they ruin lives? OK DLT and co are cleared but do they get costs? Is this just a case of "victims" going for compo in the wake of the Saville saga?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
yes but they also decide if the case is prosecutable with a reasonable chance of success. It seems to me that there could not have been any evidence only decades old recollections and accusations, no chance of a guilty. QED not in the public interest to try and prosecute when there is every chance it will fail.
As I understand things, the main job of the CPS is to decide if there is sufficient evidence for a trial to go ahead or not. There has to be a reasonable chance of a successful prosecution, otherwise the Courts would be clogged up with 1000's of cases based purely on opinion. In the case of Roach, it was clear from the court proceedings that most of the witnesses were unreliable. One of them couldn't even remember if the offence had happened or not.
I haven't been following the DLT case very closely but the Jury would appear to have had doubts about the evidence presented by the prosecution. Whether this was due to there being no or very little evidence, or the witnesses not giving a good account of themselves I can't tell.
Perhaps the CPS can enlighten us why they thought that a successful prosecution was possible ?
I have to say that if there WAS good, resilient evidence than the CPS were indeed quite correct to proceed.
I haven't been following the DLT case very closely but the Jury would appear to have had doubts about the evidence presented by the prosecution. Whether this was due to there being no or very little evidence, or the witnesses not giving a good account of themselves I can't tell.
Perhaps the CPS can enlighten us why they thought that a successful prosecution was possible ?
I have to say that if there WAS good, resilient evidence than the CPS were indeed quite correct to proceed.
No, 3Ts, the answer is that those acquitted do not get their legal costs repaid. The only time this may happen is if a prosecution was brought maliciously or by an abuse of process (both most unlikely where the CPS are concerned). It is quite true that DLT has had to sell his house to meet his costs.
It should be made clear that the remaining two charges on which the jury were unable to agree have not been thrown out by the judge. Mr Travis was released on bail until a further hearing, to be held at the crown court on 24 February, to decide if there should be a retrial on these two outstanding charges. The CPS will have to decide whether they will go for a retrial but something tells me that their “public interest” test (the second part of their two part process they use to decide whether to prosecute) may well finally scupper the charges.
It is my view that prosecutions for these "historical" offences are almost always certain to fail (a view I expressed on AB when they first reared their ugly heads). Successful prosecutions for serious offences depend upon reliable detailed evidence which will stand rigorous cross-examination. Nobody can be expected to recall details of events that took place thirty or forty years ago and whilst it is true that they may have more of an impact on the alleged victims than on the alleged perpetrators, it is unjust in the extreme to expect those accused to remember details of such events from so long ago. Hopefully the CPS will think long and hard before they haul any more people before the court as the Roache and the DLT cases suggest that they are unlikely to succeed. It’s most unfortunate for genuine victims but there is the old adage that “justice delayed is justice denied”. This works both ways and these alleged victims should not have waited until the Jimmy Saville business came to the fore.
It should be made clear that the remaining two charges on which the jury were unable to agree have not been thrown out by the judge. Mr Travis was released on bail until a further hearing, to be held at the crown court on 24 February, to decide if there should be a retrial on these two outstanding charges. The CPS will have to decide whether they will go for a retrial but something tells me that their “public interest” test (the second part of their two part process they use to decide whether to prosecute) may well finally scupper the charges.
It is my view that prosecutions for these "historical" offences are almost always certain to fail (a view I expressed on AB when they first reared their ugly heads). Successful prosecutions for serious offences depend upon reliable detailed evidence which will stand rigorous cross-examination. Nobody can be expected to recall details of events that took place thirty or forty years ago and whilst it is true that they may have more of an impact on the alleged victims than on the alleged perpetrators, it is unjust in the extreme to expect those accused to remember details of such events from so long ago. Hopefully the CPS will think long and hard before they haul any more people before the court as the Roache and the DLT cases suggest that they are unlikely to succeed. It’s most unfortunate for genuine victims but there is the old adage that “justice delayed is justice denied”. This works both ways and these alleged victims should not have waited until the Jimmy Saville business came to the fore.
apparently, halfway through the trial, someone who'd read about it turned up with video footage which appeared to clear him of one of the charges.
People who think defendants' names should be suppressed until they're found guilty might like to think about the implications of this. As I've said before, publicity works both ways.
No way the CPS could have predicted this, though.
People who think defendants' names should be suppressed until they're found guilty might like to think about the implications of this. As I've said before, publicity works both ways.
No way the CPS could have predicted this, though.
Our justice system surely has to be in tatters now. How many of the public believe it is operasting in their best interest.
It is clear this is off the back of the Savill allegations (never proven either) and Plod doing too little too late. Rather than put their efforts into these pointless cases surely it would be better to investigate current cases. If it was happening then it must be happening now, yet I dont recall bucket loads of roasting premiere footballers being hauled up. Perhaps because they have too much money to take the cps to the cleaners.
It is clear this is off the back of the Savill allegations (never proven either) and Plod doing too little too late. Rather than put their efforts into these pointless cases surely it would be better to investigate current cases. If it was happening then it must be happening now, yet I dont recall bucket loads of roasting premiere footballers being hauled up. Perhaps because they have too much money to take the cps to the cleaners.
It is becoming increasingly clear - as New Judge confirms - that historical cases like this are not going to succeed, not least because people are applying the values and attitudes of today to behaviour from forty years ago - and it's not a decent fit.
I have worked in mixed offices all my life, and the speech and behaviour that has, and still does, go on, would make an outsider need smelling salts.
But for the people involved, it is an accepted daily interaction, understood by all - if anyone goes a little to far - as can happen when humour is misunderstood, it is dealt with then and there.
It is impossible to retrosoectively apply modern attitudes to historical actions and behaviours - as these cases have, and will continue to prove.
I have worked in mixed offices all my life, and the speech and behaviour that has, and still does, go on, would make an outsider need smelling salts.
But for the people involved, it is an accepted daily interaction, understood by all - if anyone goes a little to far - as can happen when humour is misunderstood, it is dealt with then and there.
It is impossible to retrosoectively apply modern attitudes to historical actions and behaviours - as these cases have, and will continue to prove.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.