PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Rape trial collapses, Huge failings in police disclosure
southpaw82
post Fri, 15 Dec 2017 - 22:25
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,679
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



BBC Link

Absolutely shocking incompetence on the part of the police. You know you’ve gone badly wrong if even the prosecution barrister is criticising you.


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Fri, 15 Dec 2017 - 22:25
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
DancingDad
post Fri, 15 Dec 2017 - 22:38
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,837
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



I was quite impressed on the news earlier when a police spokesman managed to explain that the failure to disclose was due to police cutbacks.
As fine an example of pointing the blame to an alternative and believable (by many) position as I've seen in a long time.
(Sarcasm BTW)

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Fri, 15 Dec 2017 - 22:51
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,679
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 15 Dec 2017 - 22:38) *
I was quite impressed on the news earlier when a police spokesman managed to explain that the failure to disclose was due to police cutbacks.
As fine an example of pointing the blame to an alternative and believable (by many) position as I've seen in a long time.
(Sarcasm BTW)

Doesn’t quite gel with what the lawyer was told - that the material was not disclosable because it was "too personal". It appeared to have been reviewed, the police simply chose not to disclose it. Cut backs my arse!


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Fri, 15 Dec 2017 - 23:04
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,837
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 15 Dec 2017 - 22:51) *
....... Cut backs my arse!


My thoughts were a bit more direct but kept to myself as my daughter was in the car.

Everything I have heard or read about this simply points to the police deciding this guy was going down despite there being reasonable doubt.
And trying to make sure it happened.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StuartBu
post Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 01:33
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,765
Joined: 1 Jan 2013
From: Glasgow
Member No.: 59,097



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 15 Dec 2017 - 22:25) *
BBC Link

Absolutely shocking incompetence on the part of the police. You know you’ve gone badly wrong if even the prosecution barrister is criticising you.

That Jerry Hayes - was he not a Tory M.P. years ago - Was he not in some scandal or summat- I might be wrong about that but he used to appear on some late night TV show the name of which escapes me !!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
baggins1234
post Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 07:58
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 796
Joined: 17 Aug 2010
Member No.: 39,849



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/back-...le-1282058.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fredd
post Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 08:22
Post #7


Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 6,838
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



It's not exactly surprising this kind of thing happens (although this is a particularly egregious case) when it's the police who get to decide what evidence is and isn't disclosable. Even if everyone involved were trying to be scrupulously fair, they inevitably start from a position that's corporately biased towards seeing a defendant as guilty.


--------------------
Regards,
Fredd

__________________________________________________________________________
Pepipoo relies on you
to keep this site running!
Donate to Pepipoo now using your
Visa, Mastercard, debit card or PayPal account
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
anon45
post Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 10:25
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,052
Joined: 7 Aug 2009
Member No.: 31,007



But..."the victim must always be believed", remember? ohmy.gif

Some legal bloggers are saying that cases such as these are the consequence of savage cuts to legal aid and fixed fees to defence barristers; others are saying that it may be the consequence of comments by Alison Saunders and senior police chiefs (and indeed senior politicians) that the rape accusation-conviction rate (that is to say, the proportion of accusations resulting in convictions) is "too low" and must be raised by whatever means necessary, placing political pressure on police to suppress or fabricate evidence in order to convict the innocent.

The Times leads today (behind a paywall), with a follow-up story, the headline of which is visible at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs/the_papers, suggesting that this case is just 'the tip of the iceberg' stating that the complainant is now under investigation for perverting the course of justice, giving examples of similar cases, and quoting Angela Rafferty QC, chairwomen of the Criminal Bar Association, as saying that police and the CPS may be "unconsciously biased towards people who report sex offences".

Although not quite the same thing, albeit motivated by similar ideology, the DfE has just issued statutory guidance to schools on accusations of sexual misconduct by pupils against other pupils:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ce_-_Advice.pdf
which, in contrast to its guidance on accusations of sexual misconduct by pupils against teachers (which schools are required to treat with considerable scepticism), describes the complainant as "the victim" throughout and treats the accusation as being irrefutably true, regardless of any denial (or indeed counter-accusation) by the accused pupil (described throughout as "the alleged perpetrator"), without any consideration of exculpatory evidence, or any decision by CPS or court not to prosecute or to acquit, even where such decision is based on the evident falsity of the accusation.

The guidance all but orders schools to suspend the accused pupil even without any finding of culpability by the school or any other competent body, and, as an absolute minimum, to remove the accused pupil from classes taken by the accuser, regardless of the credibility of the accusation, and regardless of the effect on the education of the accused pupil. It also, for the first time, places schools under an obligation, rather than simply a right, to punish pupils for accusations of misconduct outside of school.

The guidance is also confused in impliedly treating all pupils (and sixth-form college students) as being children, even though, in the case of sixth-formers, it is possible that accuser, accused, or both, might be over 18, so the supposed obligation to report to 'child protection services' and parents does not make sense in such cases. (Actually, the legal position of such 'adult pupils' is somewhat unclear, although I digress).

It seems to me that, in general, pupils are no less likely to make false accusations against fellow pupils than against staff, so it is fundamentally irrational and politically motivated for the DfE to order schools to treat accusations by pupils against staff as being likely false until proven otherwise, whilst at the same time ordering schools to treat accusations by pupils against other pupils as being irrebuttably true, which will inevitably lead to pupils being expelled based on false and malicious accusations by their peers.

Furthermore, there is a huge push by the NUS and feminist groups for UK universities to be compelled to follow similar 'guidance', and to adopt internal US-style (or perhaps IPC-style) 'kangaroo courts' (as so described by three separate judges sitting in a California appeal court) to handle sexual assault accusations against students under which the fact of being male and being accused by a female is deemed to be absolute and conclusive proof of the guilt of the accused, regardless of such outdated bourgeois concepts as "evidence", "due process", "fair hearing", and "innocent until proven guilty".

Edit- For the avoidance of doubt, I deplore rape as a truly despicable crime, and would happily see actual rapists shot or castrated, but I also believe in the presumption of innocence and on judging each case on its own evidence, both of which state agencies seem to be abandoning in favour of the Stalin/ Vyshinsky model of "better 100 innocent men be punished than one guilty man go free" and "the class (today, membership of a group perceived to have been historically disadvantaged) of the accused, rather than any actual evidence, determines their guilt". The pressing and prosecution of false accusations makes it more difficult, not easier, for those women (and men) who have been raped to obtain justice.

This post has been edited by anon45: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 14:04
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StuartBu
post Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 14:32
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,765
Joined: 1 Jan 2013
From: Glasgow
Member No.: 59,097



QUOTE (anon45 @ Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 10:25) *
B

Edit- For the avoidance of doubt, I deplore rape as a truly despicable crime, and would happily see actual rapists shot or castrated,


You were doing all right until you came out with that !!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 15:15
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,679
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (StuartBu @ Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 14:32) *
QUOTE (anon45 @ Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 10:25) *
B

Edit- For the avoidance of doubt, I deplore rape as a truly despicable crime, and would happily see actual rapists shot or castrated,


You were doing all right until you came out with that !!!

I see this a lot. The person making the statement knows they’ll catch flak from the usual suspects so feels compelled to make the otherwise obvious statement that they condemn rape etc. Often this isn’t enough so they then feel compelled to propose outrageous punishments to make it really, really clear they don’t condone rape - as if there was ever any doubt. It’s a craven surrender to the harpies who insist that unless one agrees 100% with them you’re somehow a rape apologist.


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
anon45
post Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 16:29
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,052
Joined: 7 Aug 2009
Member No.: 31,007



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 15:15) *
QUOTE (StuartBu @ Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 14:32) *
QUOTE (anon45 @ Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 10:25) *
B

Edit- For the avoidance of doubt, I deplore rape as a truly despicable crime, and would happily see actual rapists shot or castrated,


You were doing all right until you came out with that !!!

I see this a lot. The person making the statement knows they’ll catch flak from the usual suspects so feels compelled to make the otherwise obvious statement that they condemn rape etc. Often this isn’t enough so they then feel compelled to propose outrageous punishments to make it really, really clear they don’t condone rape - as if there was ever any doubt. It’s a craven surrender to the harpies who insist that unless one agrees 100% with them you’re somehow a rape apologist.

OK, this actually sums up my real feelings, and reasons for editing my original post, rather well, and I now regret that particular addendum to my post for the very reasons given by southpaw82.

I don't actually want to see any convicted criminals, whether murderers, rapists, terrorists, or otherwise, executed, castrated, raped, or otherwise subject to physical violence.

There is no point in editing my previous post further, since it has already been quoted, but do simply wish to repeat my abhorrence of rape and other vile crimes, and to express my view that all such accusations deserve to be seriously and thoroughly investigated, with an open mind, and prosecuted where there is a reasonable prospect of conviction, with the usual duty on the police and CPS to disclose evidence that harms the prosecution case or assists the defence, and with the usual standard of proof applicable to a criminal case.

Other state organisations, dealing with accusations on a civil level, ought normally to use the "balance of probabilities" standard when a serious accusation is made against a member of the organisation, and, when considering "interim suspension", or similar, pending a disciplinary hearing, ought to consider a number of factors, including the relative credibility of the accuser and accused, the level of evidence, the potential harm caused to the accused by suspension, and the potential harm caused to the accuser and others by not suspending.

In general, I believe that, whilst society should always strive to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent, it is less worse to let the guilty go free than to convict the innocent, which is presumably why criminal cases are required, at least in theory, to be proven 'beyond reasonable doubt'. It is a pity that some wish to move away from this principle in the name of so-called 'social justice'.

This post has been edited by anon45: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 16:36
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 16:41
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,837
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 15:15) *
.......... It’s a craven surrender to the harpies who insist that unless one agrees 100% with them you’re somehow a rape apologist.


Same system as has been used to promote racial harmony over the years.
If anyone makes any adverse comment regarding any person of colour they are a racist.
Anyone defending the comment or the maker is also a racist.
Anyone not condemning the comment is quite possibly a racist as well and must therefore be suspect.
And if you are not a person of colour, you are automatically suspect as you have white privilege which you must expunge in public before your non racist credentials can be accepted.

Put that into the context of any sort of sex crime and all males are automatically suspect, they are beasts with uncontrollable urges and all the equipment needed to take advantage of the poor wee women.
If the male is automatically suspect, then any accusation is easy to believe.
And you cannot disbelieve else you (which is often the plod investigating) are also a closet rapist.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 16:49
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,679
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



Welcome to what passes for public discourse in 2017.


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
anon45
post Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 17:25
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,052
Joined: 7 Aug 2009
Member No.: 31,007



Also in today's Times is a two-page interview with the Ofsted Chief Inspector, Amanda Speelman, who reveals that she's been subject to death threats, intimidation and malicious claims to police by the usual intolerant-hard-left/ Islamic extremist alliance for daring to criticise faith schools which promote the beating, rape, or second-class citizenship of women, and notes that the craven DfE naturally refuses to even consider closing such schools down. She also expresses some discomfort about schools actively promoting transgenderism to children as young as 4 or 5, on the reasonable grounds that such children are too young to understand the issue, let alone to make an informed decision for themselves.

Oxford students are also nosily calling for a regius professor of theology, Professor Nigel Biggar, to be dismissed for "racism" simply for noting that the British Empire, like most empires in history, had good and bad points. After all, what would a mere professor know about such matters compared with the infinite knowledge of an self-entitled 18-year-old snowflake who has never studied the subject at all? wink.gif

Another Oxford college is requiring all freshers to attend a mandatory indoctrination session on the evils of "microaggressions" and "colonialism", whilst most other Oxbridge colleges, and many other universities, insist freshers must attend a so-called "consent workshop", typically consisting of one-third Year 9 sex education revisited, one-third "all men are racists" pseudo-statistics, and one-third teaching wilful falsehoods about the law by insisting, contrary to the case law, that drunken consent can never be valid consent.

I once myself attended a conference where a self-described left-wing feminist told of how she was set upon and physically attacked by the far-left/ Islamist mob for daring to promote equal rights of women in 'Islamic' countries as well as in Western countries.

This post has been edited by anon45: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 20:40
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
samthecat
post Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 18:17
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 259
Joined: 21 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,881



I don't get why there is any desire from the investigating officer to run with a case that fairly obviously is going to cause them a load of grief at court?

It's not hard to highlight a few text messages that undermine the aggrieved's credibility and send it on for CPS to consider.

I'll have it that some 'higher ups' may be bothered about detection rates but for the officers actually doing the job is it really going to alter the way they investigate? I personally wouldn't risk my career over chasing a conviction for some random bod.

Am I being naive?


--------------------
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
oldstoat
post Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 19:58
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,290
Joined: 16 Jan 2009
From: Up north
Member No.: 25,505



Whilst agreeing with most of what has been posted. I have a question. At no point has the dates of the texts etc been disclosed. Where they made post incident or pre incident. I have looked and looked and cannot find anything which says either way.

If pre incident, how can that undermine an accusation. I thought a rape victims, prior history was not allowed to be used against them. If post incident, why was this not made clear?


--------------------
Bridges burnt, Rubicons crossed. Parthian shots delivered, but always with style
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 20:13
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27,679
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (oldstoat @ Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 19:58) *
Whilst agreeing with most of what has been posted. I have a question. At no point has the dates of the texts etc been disclosed. Where they made post incident or pre incident. I have looked and looked and cannot find anything which says either way.


Afterwards it would seem:

QUOTE
Liam Allan's trial was 'blown out the window' yesterday after lawyers discovered his alleged victim texted him suggesting she wanted to have more sex after the alleged attack.


QUOTE
If pre incident, how can that undermine an accusation. I thought a rape victims, prior history was not allowed to be used against them.


Firstly, she is a complainant, not a victim, at least until someone is convicted. And a complainant's sexual history can be admitted with leave of the court - see s 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 20:34
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,178
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



perhaps best not to make my observation here

This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 20:37
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mickR
post Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 22:03
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,040
Joined: 5 Jan 2007
From: England
Member No.: 9,919




Blaming this on "cutbacks" has as much credibility as a 9 bob note.
A pathetic attempt to divert.
Only 2 possibilities in my opinion
1. Incopentance on a completely new level
2. Deliberate withholding for a "result"

I know which one my money is on.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
typefish
post Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 00:31
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,056
Joined: 28 Mar 2014
From: Corby
Member No.: 69,758



About four months ago, there was a case that went before a sheriff's court in Alloa I believe, for creating menacing communications.

The case collapsed when it transpired that the police had modified the evidence and removed all traces of context - the image had comments with it, which explained exactly what it was.

Now, I'm sure there must be target chasing going on.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Sunday, 18th February 2018 - 22:12
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.