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?

[cee-dee]

That case was pretty definite.

Now, defend yourself in the scenario I outlined.

[j_uk643]

One case I'm aware of took about 5 years to be  investigated and prosecuted

Had it not been for other allegations from the same institution, the case may not have proceeded

One of the accused entered a guilty plea, the other entered a NG plea but was found guilty 

Obvious band wagon jumpers eh 

[upthecreekyetagain]

Why was that case definite?  It was after all just a number of people's word against that of an individual - no physical evidence, no witnesses - something you said wasn't "right" - is it right or isn't it?

Your scenario is one person's word against another - one person who could be shown to have a motive for lying - no corroboration from the alleged victim - would be most unlikely ever to get to court let alone get a conviction.

[cee-dee]

I thought it was definite because of the methodical way it was investigated, his flight, the way he persuaded one girl's mother to put her on the pill and the way the victims reacted. Therefore, a persons word was backed up by other circumstances and the fact that he absconded to France supposedly as he claimed because his layers didn't have time to prepare a defence. After plenty of time, he didn't return......

Now, the word is that complainers must be believed and in the light of that, how would you defend yourself in the scenario I presented because after an investigation and your continued denials, those prosecuting still went forward on the basis "we'll let a jury decide".

[upthecreekyetagain]

What does the methodical investigation have to do with the quality of the evidence - all cases should be investigated methodically - as for the victims reaction, that was no different than in any of the other 'celebrity' cases.  Persuading the mother of one of the girls to put her daughter on the pill would not be that unusual for female athletes.  Yes he left the country but would I be guilty in your scenario if I did the same?

Mind you the case you described simply wouldn't pass the CPS test and would never reach court.

[upthecreekyetagain]

You seem to be forgetting that it is not up to the defendant to prove they didn't do something, it is up to the prosecution to prove they did.

[cee-dee]

Seems you're in denial about things. You're not in touch with what has gone on. The scenario I described has happened and for some unfortunates is still going on. When times and opportunity are shown to be true, the accused denies anything untoward happened and that's all he can do and what's thrown at him then is "we'll let a jury decide". Some cases were dropped on the day the case was due to start, in other cases the accused was offered the chance to plead guilty to some lesser charges. Some actually took that way out, not risking going to trial. Then those "in the know" say "he got off lightly". For the accused it's a lose - lose situation.

[upthecreekyetagain]

Strange I've not come across such cases which actually get to court.

I'm not denying though that such situations do arise - one I am familiar with is a young lad in a care home who was accused of sexual assault by another boy - it meant nearly 18 months of police bail before the CPS decided that there was insufficient evidence and that is where the problem lies in my opinion - there was absolutely no excuse for such a lengthy delay and the terms of the police bail were Draconian.

In your scenario I simply do not believe that such a case would ever get to court - there would have to be more evidence for it to do so - the first and most obvious would be evidence from the children, then from health workers and social workers.

[cee-dee]

In the scenario I posted, I'll recap, the man (a copper) and wife drifted a bit apart due to the unsocial hours and the bloke got off with a nice WPC. The wife got a bit stroppy and corrupted the children so that they repeated what the wife had said they'd told her.

There's no evidence other than what's been said in accusation.

As to "social media" identifying the "offender", the local news outlets reported that "a policeman has been suspended following allegations of sexual assault"........

Faced with such a scenario, how would you defend yourself apart from denying you'd "done anything"?

[upthecreekyetagain]

Now you have said that the children also accuse me of abuse you no longer have a "he said, she said" case.  What you have is a number of 'victims' claiming they have been abused and a direct witness to that abuse, the mother.  Difficult if not impossible, to defend oneself against other than by showing the unreliability of both victims and witness, inconsistencies in their evidence and evidence from others familiar with the family, (teachers, doctors and social workers etc.)

To put it in terms of the broken car window the case you are now outlining would be akin to three of your neighbours who don't like you smashing a car window and all three saying they saw you do it.

Both of the above are cases of perverting the course of justice - that is not what you objected to in your opening post.

[cee-dee]

Perverting the course of justice eh? I think we're back to "Prove it".

The whole point of the thread was "evidence", or rather, the lack of it and someone's word being taken as fact.

The point is, why, in one case is someon'e word taken as fact when, in a different type of case what someone says isn't good enough?

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

Perverting the course of justice eh? I think we're back to "Prove it".

The whole point of the thread was "evidence", or rather, the lack of it and someone's word being taken as fact.

The point is, why, in one case is someon'e word taken as fact when, in a different type of case what someone says isn't good enough?

---

A single person's word is NOT taken as fact in one case and as unreliable in another.

I can't think of a single situation where someone would be convicted of any offence simply on the word of a single witness.

Can you give an example as you have failed to do so up to now.

[cee-dee]

How about several cops chasing and eventually catching a "fail to stop" driver who eventually stops and runs away, struggles with the cops when caught, fails to supply a breath sample at the roadside and in the cop shop but no further action's taken?

A chased and caught bloke is one of three "burglars" who run away, he's identified as one of the three by the victim, he's arrested but again, he's released with NFA.

I can see this is going nowhere............

[upthecreekyetagain]

So they're two cases where further action isn't taken.

You asserted that in some cases action is taken based on a single witness/victims statement with no other corroborating evidence.  I can't think of a scenario where that would be the case. 

[bankhaunter]

How about a case where the only real evidence actually showed the accused man to be Innocent.

Didn't stop months of investigation and prosecution though.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/my-year-of-hell-commuter-of-preposterous-sexual-assault-ca...

The CPS even slowed the CCTV images down so they looked as thought they were taken at three second intervals instead of one second.

It's what happens when listen and believe affects investigation.

[upthecreekyetagain]

As I posted earlier when outlined what happened to the young lad whilst a resident in the care home it is the ridiculous time delays in these sort of cases that causes the most harm.

[cee-dee]

I wasn't going to point to an actual case but as this has just ended, here's one  where there's no evidence except what someone says in accusation:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-40292405

[bankhaunter]

It is indeed the long delays, often entirely uneccesary.

In the case I mentioned, there was no forensic evidence, no witnesses and she couldn't pick him out in an identity parade, so what took a year to investigate?

At a guess the file probably sat in someone's intray for months.

[upthecreekyetagain]

And another one where the defendant wasn't found guilty.

I have no problem with the jury system and in a case like this where there were originally two 'accusers' and the defendant was in such a position of trust then I can understand why the CPS decided to put the case in front of a jury.

"After the girl's mother complained to health bosses, police were contacted but no further action was taken.

The court heard that the original decision was reviewed when another girl came forward with a complaint."

The prosecution offered no evidence at the trial after the judge threw out one of the girl's complaint.

[cee-dee]

Well there you are then, you said such a thing would never go to Court.

All along I've said that the standard for evidence should be the same right across the board.