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?