Harris, no re-trial.

[cee-dee]

The latest trial of Rolf Harris has ended with the jury failing to agree. It was already a re-trial and it's been decided there won't be another (re-trial).

In the light of many such cases, isn't it time the Laws regarding evidence needs some overhaul?

Leaving aside whether Harris was guilty or not and the issue of victims seeking "justice", it seems most unfair that many years after an alleged "incident" someone can come along and make an accusation without any evidence whatsoever except for their word?

Put yourself in a similar position of being totally innocent (forget Harris for now) and facing a public accusation and a possible trial. How would you defend yourself if you did have the time, were in the place and had the opportunity but you really did do nothing? You're facing a serious allegation, you've been publicly identified and all you can say is that you "didn't do it" so what else can you do?

What beats me is that there have been cases where several youths have been in a stolen vehicle, the driver fails to stop for the cops, a chase ensues involving several cop cars and a helicopter, the youths ditch the vehicle and make off, are eventually tracked down and arrested but later, no charges are brought, why not?

The cops can't prove who was driving, they can't prove who stole the vehicle so there's been a chase costing a fortune in time and effort and all for what? The youths have extensive criminal records, some for "taking vehicles without consent" (= stealing cars), they haven't been publicly identified and they've not faced a highly publicised trial even though there's no doubt they were in a stolen vehicle.

I suppose those who see good in all sorts of repeat offenders (but who decide those facing allegations of misconduct are guilty on accusation) will find excuses for for them either getting away scot-free or with a slap on the wrist type of sentence but all these things have a cost and it's the taxpayer who picks up the bill.

The Laws on evidence and costs need some sort of a re-think?

[upthecreekyetagain]

I understand what you are sayingand the question you are asking but . . . .

Put yourself in a similar position of being totally innocent (forget Harris for now) and facing a public accusation and a possible trial. How would you defend yourself if you did have the time, were in the place and had the opportunity but you really did do nothing? You're facing a serious allegation, you've been publicly identified and all you can say is that you "didn't do it" so what else can you do?

What if you had been abused decades ago and at last saw the opportunity to get justice for the crimes committed against you?  Would you be happy for your word to be ignored? 

In all these cases it has not been a matter of a single individual making a claim that hasn't been corroborated in one way or another - there has been either backup from other witnesses/victims, evidence of early complaints being ignored or evidence of active cover-up activity.

It was the acceptance that no action should be taken or investigation carried out on the word of an individual that allowed Jimmy Saville and others of his ilk to get away with their perversions for so long.

[cee-dee]

Why not say something forcefully at the time?

Looking at it from a different aspect, some of the later victims could claim that the earlier ones allowed further events to occur due to their silence so might consider sueing them....... Corroboration isn't the same as similar accusations. Corroboration is evidence confirming an allegation. Two people making allegations of different incidents at different times and places isn't corroboration.

Anyway, like I asked, put yourself in the position of a person accused, publicly identified and facing prosecution all on the say-so someone else without any hard evidence?

[upthecreekyetagain]

A little reading will show why many victims didn't say anything at the time as well as many who did speak up and were ignored.

Victims reporting assaults can offer corroboration regarding the offences - modus operandi is often used as evidence in all sorts of crimes.

After many years there is unlikely to be any hard evidence, although there was in one of the cases against RH - there is no need for physical evidence to secure a conviction, there simply has to be a case where sufficient evidence can be put before a jury to convince them beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.

R ape is probably one of the hardest crimes to prove as is shown by the number of convictions compared to the number of reports - does that mean that future reports shouldn't be taken seriously and vigorously investigated?  I would hope that you'd agree they should.  

Exactly the same can be said of historic complaints - they should be treated seriously and the claims should be investigated and where the CPS believes there is a reasonable likelihood of 'success' court proceedings should commence.

[cee-dee]

Evidence is evidence. If you claim you saw someone you know throw a brick through a car windscreen, the cops would investigate but what happens when the accused says that yes he walked past the vehicle and it was OK then but he didn't do what you claim he did? The cops try to find some evidence to back up your claim but find nothing.

What do the cops do then? They'd say there's no evidence to prove what you say is true so there'd be no charge in that case.

So, when you have these historic claims, why do they name the accused and put them through a trial when there's no evidence?

The balance of probabilities is not evidence and isn't recognised as such.

[upthecreekyetagain]

It's the CPS who decide whether or not there is sufficient evidence to secure a conviction - if they think there is they prosecute, if not they drop the case.  This is standard for all reported crimes and to be fair they don't, in general, do a bad job within those parameters.  Most of the historic crime prosecutions have been successful.

With regards to naming the accused it is not normally the authorities who do this - normally they simply report that, "a man", "a number of people" etc. have been arrested - it is the press, news organisations or social media that name them.  When they do actively identify a "suspect" they get vigorously criticised, as happened with regards to Cliff Richards.

[cee-dee]

It's the cops who charge people. It's the CPS who take it on from there. The CPS are not involved until there's been charges.

They might have been successful (and they may well have been guilty) but it's not right that people are pinched on the say-so of accusers with no other hard evidence while in other cases (such as those I outlined) where there's some evidence no charges are brought.

In many cases they're taken to Court after saying "We'll let a jury decide" knowing emotion will usually take over. In the case of the Harris trial and re-trial, that didn't work!

[margaret*e]

It's a difficult one, terrible to be abused and be powerless to tell anyone at the time, and many years later if you find the courage to report it not to be believed, there can never be any evidence so many years later.

Equally terrible to be accused of something you haven't done, because of malice, greed or whatever.

I don't think the accused should be publicly named unless they're found guilty, whatever the verdict it's always going to be said there's no smoke without fire.

[cee-dee]

You're right there on all counts BUT....... it goes back to the question "Just what IS evidence?"

If someone's word is OK to prosecute someone in one case, isn't it the same in another?

[fallen-archie]

I simply don't think you can keep a name secret any more, the internet has put paid to that! As for historic cases one must ask why these people did not come forward earlier?
However if you look at the image of Cliff Richard these days following unfounded allegations against him it is a. very unsavoury picture these days!

[cee-dee]

What's been kept out of it is the mention of him in the "records" from the notorious Elm Guest House where he was referred to as "Kitty".

It wasn't right though that the raid on his place was under the full glare of "The Media".

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

It's the cops who charge people. It's the CPS who take it on from there. The CPS are not involved until there's been charges.

---

Once the police have completed their investigations, they will refer the case to us for advice on how to proceed in all but the most minor and routine cases. We will then make a decision on whether a suspect should be charged, and what that charge should be.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/victims_witnesses/reporting_a_crime/decision_to_charge.html

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

It's the cops who charge people. It's the CPS who take it on from there. The CPS are not involved until there's been charges.

They might have been successful (and they may well have been guilty) but it's not right that people are pinched on the say-so of accusers with no other hard evidence while in other cases (such as those I outlined) where there's some evidence no charges are brought.

In many cases they're taken to Court after saying "We'll let a jury decide" knowing emotion will usually take over. In the case of the Harris trial and re-trial, that didn't work!

---

So how many individuals and which ones do you think have been found guilty in court based purely on the verbal accounts of 'accusers'.  

[cee-dee]

I've no idea but there have been many, many cases reported where they were "historical" and for which the only "evidence" was the word of accusers.

I want to make it quite clear that I think that in all probability some of the accused were guilty, what my point is is that the word of someone isn't evidence and just the word of someone isn't accepted in other types of cases.

That being so, it lays people open to being falsely accused of crimes and publicly identified. There has to be a more rigid determination of what is and what isn't evidence.

[upthecreekyetagain]

Worth a read

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-36055744

[mr-expresso]

It's the cops who charge people. It's the CPS who take it on from there. The CPS are not involved until there's been charges.

This is not quite the case..

Once the police have completed their investigations, they will refer the case to us for advice on how to proceed in all but the most minor and routine cases. We will then make a decision on whether a suspect should be charged, and what that charge should be.

Taken for the CPS web site.

[j_uk643]

This has been well discussed on here several times


It's been the cps' role to decide on prosecution in all such cases bar minor obvious ones, for many years now yet still the idea persists that the police decide.

As has also been said on here too, and before, it is mostly the press who specifically identify an individual, not the police
So if you are so concerned, stop buying their newspapers, but i seriously doubt most will.The press justification is the public want to know, and their sales increase. If their sales went down they might not name as they are free to do now
The same papers which name and salivate over cases, may also lecture on why the case was brought in the first place,if a NG verdict is reached, and how the defendant has suffered badly, and hint there was no real evidence, hoping their readers will clutch at pearls and forget they named them publicly and ran a daily commentary.Yes the press have culpability, and so do their readers
What would ronalds take be?

There is no time limit in principle on criminal cases, whatever they may be, with few exceptions

It's the prosecutions job to make a case beyond reasonable doubt so the idea that the defendant has to somehow prove his/her innocence is a false picture often presented by tabloid press, and swallowed by the gullible

ahh but its a celeb, therefore more risk. Experience and observation suggest some of gbp would not convict certain celebs
whatever the evidence

I've no idea what so-called hard evidence is, other than some evidence may be more compelling than others

No evidence. If that were so, the case would be NFA, unless you're inclined to believe the police, cps, judge are incompetent based on what was read in the Sun

There are plenty of sources and those who have been abused on the internet.It might be a learning experience for some.Course if that's not the aim, then no doubt the same will be re recycled again at a future date along with same horizontal 'learning curve'

[jeffremington]

(writing under a diff account)

I find myself completely torn over these historical cases, I always believed there had to be hard evidence, DNA , witnesses whatever for charges to stick but seems not.  There is also confusion nowdays of what constitutes sexual assault. 'Old school' would think penetration but some cases now use it to describe fondling upwards if unwelcome.

We also have to consider changing times and attitudes and how now guys are even frightened to wolf whistle.  

I grew up and remember the 60's 😛 I hung around stage doors when rising stars did their provincial gigs.  If a big star had 'invited' me would i have thought twice?...nope...  If years down the line he hadn't married me, was a billionnaire and I was of a certain age with a grudge seeing an opportunity to cry foul would i?  Well maybe some now do.  My amazement is that every single famous or infamous group/band hasn't been dragged through the courts by now. Maybe the guys and gals were too drugged up to remember.

As a child being given a lift to swimming by a neighbour he stopped with my friend in the back and started kissing me. I made it clear this was unwelcome and still had to go swimming. Was this assault? Should i now complain? He wasn't famous and is probably dead now......but even the dead can be pursued. I did tell my p's and he never took me again but  i have no idea if anything happened compared to now. Being primary age i still knew 'no' for it to go no further and he wasnt a Beatle...

Women threw panties at Tom Jones what was that message? I therefore have some sympathy for celebs who had 'women' throwing themselves at them and could not be saints or gay.

Sadly 'it was different then' is not a defence.

[upthecreekyetagain]

I too spent the whole of my teens in the '60s and stories of 'groupies' were rife, and reported at the time in the more salacious publications.

There is a hell of a difference between consensual behaviour that the 'groupies' indulged in and the unwanted assaults that have been reported with regards to the likes of Jimmy Saville and the one you described with your neighbour.

None of the cases that I can recall involving "celebrities" were ones of consensual behaviour but were out and out assaults.

The right or wrongs of sexual assault was not different 'then' - what is different is that such assaults are now treated seriously, rightly so in my opinion.

[cee-dee]

 I think the point of the thread has been missed or forgotten.

The main point was evidence. Why is it that the word of someone isn't accepted in all cases?

If I saw UTCYA smash a car window and reported that, in the face of a denial and there being no other evidence whatsoever, what I said wouldn't result in a charge let alone a trial.

It's very dangerous ground to just take someone's word for something.

Here's a scenario:-

You're a policeman and during the course of your service you're on duty for all sorts of unsocial hours. You and your wife gradually grow a little apart and due to close proximity to that nice, attractive policewoman, eventually things take a different course......

Wifey then get's a bit aggrieved, alienates the children and eventually accuses (now) ex-hubby of impropriety with the children.... (see where this is going?)

You have had the opportunity to "do all sorts of things" during time alone with the children when on outings alone with them, bathing them, putting them to bed, getting them up and ready for school......

How would you defend yourself against such accusations?

You've been accused, you're suspended from your job, it's causing problems with your new relationship, everyone knows what you've been accused of but what can you do?

Even if you "escaped" without being charged, the stigma would always be hanging over you and there'd be nodding, head-shaking, knowing glances and "there's no smoke without fire".......

There's no easy answer but what's yours?