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]

First of all regarding "smashing car windows".

You are of course right that a single occasion would not, most likely, result in action.

Now let's say that the following night a different witness came forward saying he had seen me smash another car window - then a few nights later someone else came forward and said they'd seen me smash yet another car window.  

Still no direct evidence in any of the cases.  Each case when looked at individually depends on a, "he said, she said" scenario.  The similarity between the cases however and the independence of the witness evidence would almost certainly result in me being charged with all three offences and most likely being found guilty in court - rightly so.

In the second scenario you paint I can relate to exactly what you are saying - what you are describing though is not a problem with the accusation being investigated - I would expect every such situation to be thoroughly looked into.  The problem doesn't lie with the police, (they very rarely release names or details of any accusation).  It is the media, social networks and individuals who are the root of this particular problem.

The accused in such cases do suffer badly even when innocent of any ill doing - how you get around this depends on an unlikely change in social behaviour.  That however doesn't mean that any accusation of assault should be ignored, or is that what you are suggesting?

[cee-dee]

Even if three people said they saw you smash windows it doesn't mean the accusation is true. Now, how about those accusations turning up after 30 years????

In the second scenario, what do you do? OK, investigate but if there's no direct evidence, there's NO evidence, not "insufficient evidence", NO evidence but still people have been identified and charged and their lives ruined.

[upthecreekyetagain]

No amount of evidence ever means that a conviction is 100% certain - all that has to be proven is that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that you have committed an offence.  If three different and unconnected people independently attest that they have seen you break a car window then it isn't reasonable to believe they have all lied.

I still don't know what you want unless you are saying that if someone has been accused of assault, whether it was yesterday or 30 years ago that this shouldn't be investigated - what about murder, should that be ignored because it happened a long time ago?  It is at the interview stage that most accused are identified.  Granting suspects anonymity isn't going to work either - with social media, names are very quickly revealed and within their social circle and family it is almost impossible to hide from such an accusation.

So do you want such accusations to be ignored because of the harm the alleged perpetrator may suffer?  - If not then what do you suggest should happen if a number of individuals come forward with accusations about someone, whether the accused is a priest, a care home worker, swimming coach, 'celebrity' or anything else?

[cee-dee]

I've not said things shouldn't be investigated. There's a big difference between investigating and taking it further than an investigation just on the say-so of what someone says.

Information or an accusation should lead to an investigation which usually (note usually) leads to further evidence.

When it doesn't lead to further, more concrete evidence, that should be the end of it until something more concrete turns up. That's usually the case with most crimes so why doesn't that apply across the board. What's sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander?

[upthecreekyetagain]

But if there isn't sufficient evidence then that is where it does end - yes some defendants have been found not guilty but that doesn't mean there wasn't a case to answer - that is the purpose of a trial.

In any case in your post you were referring to cases which might not even get to court but someone has been identified and vilified - there is very little that can be done in such situations because as I said earlier names will become public even though the police don't release this information.  I still don't understand what you think should happen.

[cee-dee]

Just an accusation isn't evidence. If that's all there is, it's not "Insufficient evidence", realistically it means there's NO evidence.

What I'm trying to get over is that the same criteria isn't applied across the board.

[upthecreekyetagain]

The CPS state that the same criteria regarding whether or not a person is charged with an offence are used in all but the most minor of cases - essentially it is a judgement call as to whether or not a conviction is likely on the evidence available.

The criteria they have to follow in making a decision is laid out in the "Code for Crown Prosecutors"

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors/index.html

I don't understand the case you are trying to make - there seems to be little evidence to support your accusation 🙂

[cee-dee]

If you follow many different cases of criminality you'll clearly see that "evidence" is not applied in the same manner notwithstanding the severity or otherwise of the offence(s).

[upthecreekyetagain]

The way in which evidence is 'applied' will always be different as it depends as much on the participants in a particular case as it does on the 'quality' of that evidence - the guidelines however remain the same.

Your main concern all through this thread has been concern over the way in which an accusation, (whether that accusation be genuine or not), harms a potential defendant.

What I have been asking is for a few specifics on how that harm can be mitigated without failing to offer 'victims' justice.

[cee-dee]

My main thought was that accusatory evidence on it's own without any supporting evidence shouldn't be relied upon. The most unreliable evidence is that from an eye witness.

I don't suppose many people know that for training, police officers are shown a "crime" scenario and afterwards are asked questions about what they've see, This fulfils two purposes, 1/To learn to be obsevant of seemingly innocuous details and 2/ to show how unreliable eye witness evidence can be.

During one such test, one officer was so cinvinced of the accuracy of his own observation that when shown the video again, he insisted the video had been altered. That bit concerned the colour of the "offenders" coat. So if a cop's eye witness evidence can sometimes be wrong, what chance is there that an untrained member of the public can also be wrong?

Now, after 30 years or so, just how reliable is the evidence given by an accuser?

[upthecreekyetagain]

That's a bit of a red herring - in the cases we have been discussing on this thread there aren't eye witnesses but victims.  It's hardly likely that in the case of someone they knew they would be mistaken in identifying their attacker or being mistaken about what was done to them!

A single accusation on its own with no other supporting evidence is unlikely to be relied on to secure a conviction - that doesn't mean to say that anyone making such an accusation should be treated on a basis of disbelief - that is how it used to be and what prevented many of these cases from being dealt with at the time.  

Thankfully we treat current cases far more seriously and with an open mind.

I've been trying to think of any reports I've seen where an accused who has been acquitted in one of these cases has taken civil action against multiple accusers - the standard of proof is much lower in a civil case.

[upthecreekyetagain]

A civil action requires the accuser to demonstrate that on the balance of probabilities they had been attacked or looked at the other way round the accused would only have to demonstrate that on the balance of probabilities they hadn't molested their accusers.  

There have been a number of cases where victims have sued their attackers despite them being found not guilty in court or never actually being charged with an offence - the Bill Cosby case being a prime example.

All this suggests to me that the CPS are getting it just about right. 

[cee-dee]

It's not the identifying of an attacker, it's the acceptance of their word without any other evidence. Someone's word alone isn't enough evidence for other cases so why accept it for these historical alleged cases?

[upthecreekyetagain]

You are on a jury and five individuals testified in court that the same individual had molested each of them in a similar fashion and in similar circumstances - despite the best endeavours of the defence no collusion nor ulterior motive could be demonstrated between them.

Witnesses were called that showed that the 'victims' were where they said they were and backed up their peripherary testimony.

Are you saying you would still have a reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused?

Personally I would say that in such circumstances it would be totally unreasonable to return a not-guilty verdict.

[j_uk643]

I've covered evidence and so-called 'hard evidence' above.There either is or is not sufficient evidence to offer a realistic chance of prosecution.


I'm afraid if 'old skool' believe that now, or did between 56 and 2003 then they are incorrect now, and were incorrect during, and indeed before that time period as well.

changed times. If someone is accused of committing a crime say in 1975, then they are prosecuted under the law which prevailed then , not now.So the implication by some that it's retrospective using current law to prosecute past events is simply not correct

The prism of celebrity. As said already these are a tiny number of cases, but yet are often those because of media coverage which focus the attention of some, beyond what their small numbers would justify.

If the people/bands haven't been dragged through the courts as you mention then perhaps there aren't those of certain intent some would want to believe.

Depends what you mean by pursued.The deceased can't really be prosecuted


I'm sure times have changed as you say, but it's the law applicable at that time that is used to prosecute. Arguably some change is for better, some not so.It was possible to put ads saying 'no B*****, no I****, and no dogs.Some may mourn that time and that 'freedom' personally in certain respects at least, I don't

Are males currently afraid to wolf whistle? - I can't say I've noticed fear, perhaps they just think it may not be the coolest approach available and belongs to another era. But Ive heard in the NW some are terrified of small Irish women, so who knows

[j_uk643]

Most evidence degrades with time.

Many cases will not proceed because there is not sufficient evidence to meet the appropriate test or stand a realistic chance of prosecution

Of course you might prefer to believe the Sun, or the Daily Mail, or perhaps your local QC down the wood yard,  that they know better than  the police, cps, and the trial judge.

obvious innit

[cee-dee]

Go back to the scenario in #20. How would you defend yourself? If you were truly not guilty, would you relish facing a jury after being charged after such allegations?

By your reckoning what was said in accusation would make you guilty. Is that right and proper? I don't think it is.

[upthecreekyetagain]

You're missing the point - in the scenario you refer to it is one persons word against another's.

That's NOT the situation in these 'historic' or current cases.

[cee-dee]

Just because there's several people who've jumped on the bandwagon still doesn't make it right.

Now, just how would you defend yourself?

[upthecreekyetagain]

What "bandwagon" was there in this case:-

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12070957.Hickson_trained_international_athletes_but_preyed_on_you...

A perfect example of where there was no direct evidence of guilt as all the attacks took place in 'private' - you think the verdict wasn't "right"?