Musings and Snippets from a recently retired JP. I served for 31 years, mostly in west London. I was Chairman of my Bench for some years, and a member of the National Bench Chairmen's Forum All cases are based on real ones, but anonymised and composited. All opinions are those of one or more individuals. JPs swear to enforce the law of the land, whether or not they approve of it. Nothing on here constitutes legal advice.
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
So It's NFA Then........
This report speaks for itself. Perhaps in future those who rushed to condemn will think twice.
It may well have had "the smell of mob justice about it, and Oxford ought to be able to do better than that." but it was not the university that arrested him. It was the police who, at the time, must have thought they had sufficient evidence unless you are suggesting they know they didn't.
To point out the obvious...I) the quality of evidence sufficient for arrest does not need to be the quality of evidence needed to convict, II) an arrest is not a conviction, and III) it was indeed the mob of Oxford University that convicted him in the press. It is interesting to see the Debating Society at least back-pedalling, while there is evidently total silence from the rest.
Yes, that is true. however, these days there is a rush toi believe every utterence from a so -called victim before any critical examination iof the facts. Why? Because everyone is frightened of being critisied for making tough and sometimes unpopular decisions
The thing that strikes me is that these days the police seem to be in far too much of a hurry to arrest someone before they have collected enough evidence for a conviction. I'm sure that this happens far more frequently than it did, say, thirty years ago. Surely the only reasons for arresting someone before evidence has been collected is if there is a risk that they will commit another crime or that they will be able to destroy evidence What possible arguments are there for arresting an alleged rapist and then releasing him on police bail. Obviously he wasn't considered a risk and it seems unlikely to me that there would be any evidence of the alleged crime that he could destroy? Nor would he be likely to reveal anything under interrogation, we've all seen enough TV programmes to know about our right to silence and having a solicitor present. So why do the police seem so anxious to make arrests these days?
In rape cases forensics are often crucial and can't be collected from the suspect unless he is under arrest. He can't be kept in custody unless he is charged so that's why he was released. Jaded
There is no duty on the police to 'collect enough evidence for a conviction' before arresting somebody and there never has been. The arrest may have been necessary to ensure he was given conditions not to contact the alleged victim. I don't see how you can make the sweeping statement 'obviously he wasn't considered a risk'. How do you know this?
How come there's no mention of the CPS in this? That is, did they advise the police to drop it because they're too incompetent to prosecute (I'm not saying he's innocent or guilty, because I simply don't know), iow, was it a unilateral decision or not? I am very critical of the (present & previous) CPS; having said that, I believe they are under-resourced and this needs to be majorly reversed.
Biscuit: I suppose you think bliar is innocent regarding Iraq because he hasn't been 'proven' - in a court - guilty. What do you say when the cps comes out with cr*p that THEY think something is not 'in the public interest' and therefore REFUSE to prosecute? What do you say to the many cases where the cps has f*d- up because they lost files, the quality of the attending prosecutor was beyond dire etc etc so people walk free, NOT because they are innocent, but because the cps is at fault???
And to you, Anonymous, you still don't grasp the fact that evidence provided by idiots will produce idiotic judgements; garbage in, garbage out. What's the CPS's success rate??? 20% or less on the original charge, is a FAILURE, and if you don't think so, then try only getting about 20% of YOUR work right and see how long you last in your job. Pity anyone who has you as a surgeon for instance. But then, people who are happy with mediocricy are themselves that.
So, now we know that these past two years the CPS has been 'Explore[ing] a culture of invaded privacy'. Fair dues:- they got a few guilty pleas and there may yet be further prosecutions. However, the flagship trial has been a 6 - 1 loss, with the one conviction evidently carrying a maximum possible sentence of two years (i.e., 6 months locked up). Just wonder whether all that resource would have been better directed at reducing the routine understaffing and administrative cock-ups that occur widely across the courts system, and leave culture explorations to the likes of Leveson.
I think you will find that the majority of those charged were convicted. Defence counsel aren't daft and probably didn't advise pleading not guilty unless they thought they had a fighting chance: trial conviction rates are always lower than overall rates among those charged. Sure, the system is understaffed, but anyone conspiring to invade privacy as NI journalists did or to bribe public officials, is guilty of an offence. That they are clever and educated, and make their money through such crimes rather than through burglary or drug-dealing should not protect them: they really should know better. Even when I used to prosecute, I could have sympathy with the idiot thug charged with an assault; I find it much harder in these cases.
Obligatory Wikipedia quote [in re: any irrelevant Hitler reference]: "For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized corollary that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful."
I would suggest the Mr. Frost's question is less toward one shutting down a discussion thread and more toward highlighting the tedious (and largely UK-based) injection of irrelevant reference to Messrs. Blair and Bush Minor as unindicted war criminals when the topic is arguably not about war.
If Mr. Frost wishes to adopt this law as Frost's Corollary I have no objection.
Posts are pre-moderated. Please bear with us if this takes a little time, but the number of bores and obsessives was getting out of hand, as were the fake comments advertising rubbish.
It may well have had "the smell of mob justice about it, and Oxford ought to be able to do better than that." but it was not the university that arrested him. It was the police who, at the time, must have thought they had sufficient evidence unless you are suggesting they know they didn't.
ReplyDeleteTo point out the obvious...I) the quality of evidence sufficient for arrest does not need to be the quality of evidence needed to convict, II) an arrest is not a conviction, and III) it was indeed the mob of Oxford University that convicted him in the press. It is interesting to see the Debating Society at least back-pedalling, while there is evidently total silence from the rest.
DeleteAnd innocent until proven guilty.
DeleteYes, that is true. however, these days there is a rush toi believe every utterence from a so -called victim before any critical examination iof the facts.
DeleteWhy?
Because everyone is frightened of being critisied for making tough and sometimes unpopular decisions
I'm also uncomfortable with the language used when these sorts of charges fizzle out.
ReplyDelete"No further action will be taken"
"There was insufficient evidence"
Factual these statements may be, but they do nothing to silence the "no smoke without fire" crowd.
Please sign: https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/david-cameron-pm-sack-chris-grayling-mp
ReplyDeleteThe thing that strikes me is that these days the police seem to be in far too much of a hurry to arrest someone before they have collected enough evidence for a conviction. I'm sure that this happens far more frequently than it did, say, thirty years ago.
ReplyDeleteSurely the only reasons for arresting someone before evidence has been collected is if there is a risk that they will commit another crime or that they will be able to destroy evidence
What possible arguments are there for arresting an alleged rapist and then releasing him on police bail. Obviously he wasn't considered a risk and it seems unlikely to me that there would be any evidence of the alleged crime that he could destroy? Nor would he be likely to reveal anything under interrogation, we've all seen enough TV programmes to know about our right to silence and having a solicitor present.
So why do the police seem so anxious to make arrests these days?
In rape cases forensics are often crucial and can't be collected from the suspect unless he is under arrest. He can't be kept in custody unless he is charged so that's why he was released.
DeleteJaded
There is no duty on the police to 'collect enough evidence for a conviction' before arresting somebody and there never has been. The arrest may have been necessary to ensure he was given conditions not to contact the alleged victim. I don't see how you can make the sweeping statement 'obviously he wasn't considered a risk'. How do you know this?
DeleteHow come there's no mention of the CPS in this? That is, did they advise the police to drop it because they're too incompetent to prosecute (I'm not saying he's innocent or guilty, because I simply don't know), iow, was it a unilateral decision or not?
ReplyDeleteI am very critical of the (present & previous) CPS; having said that, I believe they are under-resourced and this needs to be majorly reversed.
Anon 22:00 it's very straightforward: he's innocent because he hasn't been proved guilty.
ReplyDeleteBiscuit: I suppose you think bliar is innocent regarding Iraq because he hasn't been 'proven' - in a court - guilty. What do you say when the cps comes out with cr*p that THEY think something is not 'in the public interest' and therefore REFUSE to prosecute? What do you say to the many cases where the cps has f*d- up because they lost files, the quality of the attending prosecutor was beyond dire etc etc so people walk free, NOT because they are innocent, but because the cps is at fault???
ReplyDeleteApparently you're still not grasping the "innocent until proven guilty" thing. Do keep trying, you'll get there in the end.
DeleteAnd to you, Anonymous, you still don't grasp the fact that evidence provided by idiots will produce idiotic judgements; garbage in, garbage out. What's the CPS's success rate??? 20% or less on the original charge, is a FAILURE, and if you don't think so, then try only getting about 20% of YOUR work right and see how long you last in your job. Pity anyone who has you as a surgeon for instance. But then, people who are happy with mediocricy are themselves that.
DeleteSo do you think that any time someone is acquitted, it's because of a failure by the CPS? I don't think you really understand the concept of "trials".
DeleteIs there any equivalent to Godwin's law, so as to cover Blair and Dubya ?
ReplyDeleteTo Tony: Sure, why not? Just keep increasing the number of 'reasons' against anything you want until no-one can argue against anything.
ReplyDeleteSo, now we know that these past two years the CPS has been 'Explore[ing] a culture of invaded privacy'. Fair dues:- they got a few guilty pleas and there may yet be further prosecutions. However, the flagship trial has been a 6 - 1 loss, with the one conviction evidently carrying a maximum possible sentence of two years (i.e., 6 months locked up). Just wonder whether all that resource would have been better directed at reducing the routine understaffing and administrative cock-ups that occur widely across the courts system, and leave culture explorations to the likes of Leveson.
ReplyDeleteI think you will find that the majority of those charged were convicted. Defence counsel aren't daft and probably didn't advise pleading not guilty unless they thought they had a fighting chance: trial conviction rates are always lower than overall rates among those charged.
DeleteSure, the system is understaffed, but anyone conspiring to invade privacy as NI journalists did or to bribe public officials, is guilty of an offence. That they are clever and educated, and make their money through such crimes rather than through burglary or drug-dealing should not protect them: they really should know better.
Even when I used to prosecute, I could have sympathy with the idiot thug charged with an assault; I find it much harder in these cases.
Obligatory relevant XKCD: http://xkcd.com/261/
ReplyDeleteObligatory Wikipedia quote [in re: any irrelevant Hitler reference]: "For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized corollary that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful."
I would suggest the Mr. Frost's question is less toward one shutting down a discussion thread and more toward highlighting the tedious (and largely UK-based) injection of irrelevant reference to Messrs. Blair and Bush Minor as unindicted war criminals when the topic is arguably not about war.
If Mr. Frost wishes to adopt this law as Frost's Corollary I have no objection.