Was the case against an immigrant Gypsy gang dropped because it wasn’t in the public interest?
Posted by 5cc
April 14th, 2010
The most read story on the Daily Mail website today is labelled ‘Immigrant gang of eight molest girl, 14, in street – but no one is charged as it’s ‘not in public interest” on the homepage, and in the page title (which also includes a classic tabloid ‘fury as’). Clicking the link will show that the headline has been changed to ‘Eight boys molest girl, 14, in street but not one faces charges‘.
The change of headline could have been made because of a statement issued by the Crown Prosecution Service, reported in Peterborough Today, which says:
The Crown Prosecution Service refuted reports that it decided to drop the case because it was not deemed to be in the public interest. A spokesman said all decisions to press charges are based on two “tests” outlined in the Code for Crown Prosecutors.
He said: “The first is the evidential test where we have to be satisfied that there is enough admissible evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.
“If the evidence satisfies the first test, then we have to consider the second test – the public interest test. A prosecution will usually take place unless the public interest factors against prosecution clearly outweigh those in favour of prosecution.
“In this particular case, there was a lack of sufficient evidence to give rise to a realistic prospect of conviction before a criminal court and so the public interest test was not considered.”
So, the boys did not escape prosecution because it wasn’t in the public interest. It’s a shame, but there just wasn’t enough evidence to get a conviction from. This sort of thing happens, annoying as it might be.
What about the other claim in the original headline, that an ‘immigrant gang of eight’ molested a girl?
Speaking to MailWatch, a spokesperson for the Crown Prosecution Service said that although it would be accurate to say the boys were Slovakian, “some reports have called the boys ‘gypsy migrants’ which would not be accurate language to use,” and not something the CPS would have said. This is because the information the CPS has comes from the question on the police’s arrest form, which is self-reported by the suspect. It doesn’t include information like ‘gypsy’.
As for the ‘migrant’ or ‘immigrant’ – the Mail article has this to say:
The boys, from local Romany migrant families who settled in the city in the late 1990s…
So, since the boys are aged between 8 and 12 and their families arrived in the UK in the late 90s, they’re probably not migrants at all. Since their parents arrived before Slovakia joined the EU and movement between EU countries became easier, they may even be UK citizens.
The removal of the word ‘immigrant’ probably explains the headline change, since the boys aren’t called immigrants in the body of the story. It’s the only thing that has gone though. The story still falsely claims in its opening sentence:
A gang of boys who molested a girl of 14 have escaped prosecution because it is ‘not in the public interest’.
The paper gets around the ‘migrant’ and ‘gypsy’ references by saying:
…the boys, from Slovakian gipsy families…
[and]
The boys, from local Romany migrant families…
Where the idea that their families are gypsies comes from is anyone’s guess.
Although the paper may have been careful only to imply the boys are immigrants in the body of the story, it has been less than careful in moderating the comments, which say:
Good to see the CPS are obeying Government dictat and placing the human rights of immigrants above those of the indigenous population when the law is broken.
And:
We cannot allow bands of immigrant boys who perpetrate this type of crime to go unpunished.
And:
This country now belongs to benefits claimants, criminals and street gangs, bankers, human rights lawyers, and economic immigrants….
And:
I’ll bet the spineless, idiotic, moronic wombles from the CPS would soon be prosecuting if one of the immigrants had made a complaint.
And:
Soon, the UK will have the same problems as France (rape rooms in the ghettos) and the immigrant (youth) gang rapists in Australia, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands etc
And:
The reason is simple. There is not a penny to be made in the form of fines by prosecuting these illegal immigrants.
And:
Eastern European gypsies enjoy a doubly protected status in Britain as immigrants and as gypsies.
And:
In who’s best interest? This lying government, to keep the crimes of immigrants out of the statistics.
And:
Ah, but if the victim had been an immigrant and the offenders indigenous English do you think the CPS would have come to the same decision? Neither do I.
And:
Typical – One rule for immigrants and one for the people of this once great country
And:
Who makes these decisions? Whoever decided that allowing these immigrant thugs to walk free was the righ thing to do, needs to lose their job.
I could go on, but I’m sure you get the picture by now. Lots of commenters say the boys are immigrants, as does the homepage link and page title.
Loads more comments also say the prosecution was dropped because it wasn’t in the public interest, but the paper didn’t bother to remove that bit from the article.
Still not true though.
UPDATE- For another look at this story and a possible reason for why it was told in this way, see TabloidWatch for ‘How the anti-immigration agenda works‘.
Categories: Immigration |
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Kevin Arscott, Sim-O, topsy_top20k, mailwatch, Greg Eden and others. Greg Eden said: RT @5ChinCrack: New post at MailWatch: Was the case against an immigrant Gypsy gang dropped because it wasn’t in the public interest? http://bit.ly/dqYNB8 [...]
It’s certainly not the first time the Mail’s got confused about this – I remember this from a few months ago:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1212734/Yobs-left-young-man-half-head-escape-charges.html
The quote from the mother’s particularly poor:
”It is ridiculous for the CPS to say they do not have enough evidence, you just have to look at Steve to see the damage they have caused,”
Of course no-one was denying that this poor bloke had been attacked – just that they didn’t know who’d done it! The Mail didn’t challenge it, of course, and framed it as if the CPS was just letting them off…
It’s funny. One minute the UK is going to the dogs, a once proud country run into the ground by beauracratic bollocks. The next minute there’s an endless flood of people wanting to move here. So is the UK great or not? Our racist tabloids literally don’t know whether they are coming or going.
Chris
Does anyone with legal experience think this article incites racial hatred or that it’s worth a complaint to the PCC?
The Mail’s claim that the prosecution was dropped because it was ‘not in the public interest’ is based on a direct quote from a named Crown Prosecution Service spokesperson.
ie the Mail wrote it because the CPS said it.
Has the CPS denied making the comment to the Mail journalist?
Um.. when you say the Mail ‘ has been less than careful in the comments’ – it rather implies that the Mail wrote the comments rather than if failed to moderate them to your satisfaction.
The comments may be distateful, and they may be factually incorrect but there’s a fairly blurry line between free speech and incitement to racial hatred and I don’t know which side of the blur these comments lie on.
I’m assuming of course that you have used a fully representative selection of comments and didn’t just trawl through for the usual collection of nasties written by nutters so that you can accuse the Mail of racism by proxy. (Oh wait…)
Hi Karlo:
The Mail’s claim that the prosecution was dropped because it was ‘not in the public interest’ is based on a direct quote from a named Crown Prosecution Service spokesperson. ie the Mail wrote it because the CPS said it.
Perhaps – providing the paper has accurately quoted what he said – but there has been a subsequent statement pointing out that the case wasn’t dropped because it wasn’t in the public interest. The paper has amended the headline for some reason, but hasn’t amended the article in light of that statement.
Um.. when you say the Mail ‘ has been less than careful in the comments’ – it rather implies that the Mail wrote the comments rather than if failed to moderate them to your satisfaction.
If that’s the case, how did you know I meant the paper had failed to moderate them? Still, I’ve amended the post to clarify.
The comments may be distateful, and they may be factually incorrect but there’s a fairly blurry line between free speech and incitement to racial hatred and I don’t know which side of the blur these comments lie on.
In the post above, I was only concerned with whether or not they were accurate, which they’re not.
I’m assuming of course that you have used a fully representative selection of comments…
Why? I didn’t claim to have a representative cross section of comments, I only said that lots of comments say the boys were immigrants.
It’s worth noting that all these foaming mouthed ravers against immigrants and for the British way of life forget the essential of the judicial system – a presumption of innocence until proven otherwise and the right to a fair trial. I include the Mail in this it hardly needs saying.
Typical vile hatred – and an affront to ‘traditional British values’ in fact.
….unless those values are the traditional Daily Mail Hitler-loving ones.
Goebbels would have been so proud.
Hmm, seems slightly suspicious that the CPS subsequently changed their reason for not pursuing the case. Could it be that, especially with an election looming, and immigration one of the biggest worries of ordinary people, pressure was put on the CPS to conclude that there was not enough evidence to proceed with the case? Your blind assumption that immigrants can do no wrong is staggering – makes one wonder what your own background is.
[...] So are they definitely Gypsies? Over at Mailwatch, 5CC reports that: [...]
“So, the boys did not escape prosecution because it wasn’t in the public interest. It’s a shame, but there just wasn’t enough evidence to get a conviction from.”
Erm. While I realise the main point here is that the Mail has gotten it wrong, which it certainly has, the above makes it sound as if the author of the post is confused as well. If there is clearly insufficient evidence to secure a conviction then the crown prosecutor should decline to prosecute the case in the public interest. The interest being both to avoid the costs both financial and temporal of a trial and the fact that a not guilty verdict will in most cases (though I believe IIRC that molestation isn’t one of them) prevent subsequent successful prosecution later if more evidence comes to light.
It sounds almost as if the author is as confused as the Mail; when it’s said the trial did not proceed because it wasn’t in the public interest, it means that it wasn’t in the public interest. Where the Mail errs is assuming that ‘public interest’ equates with ’something in which the public is interested’. This is either because the writers at the Mail either don’t know anyone with even a 1st year law students level of understanding of procedure or else they’re making shit up to sell their fish-wrapper.
@PCWatch – “Hmm, seems slightly suspicious that the CPS subsequently changed their reason for not pursuing the case.” – In what was is it ’suspicious’. Unless you believe that the CPS was leant on by central government concerned about a potential scandal (a serious allegation made without any proof which is all the more unlikely to occur during an election) or else they were bribed by the families involved (another very serious allegation made without a shred of even circumstantial evidence) I fail to see what the warrant is for raising the eyebrow of ’suspicion’ here. As you’d know if you had even basic familiarity with the practice of the CPS a case can be forwarded which on immediate appearance looks solid enough to go to trial only for a closer examination of that same evidence to reveal clear reasons why it would be insufficient to secure a conviction. And if you try cases which won’t be convicted you not only waste the courts time which could be spent e.g. trying people who might get convicted, you also make it harder to secure a conviction if later evidence comes to light. It’s not only foolish to try a case with insufficient evidence it is morally reprehensible. This kind of decision process – when a case is a first accepted by the CPS then thrown out due to insufficient evidence – happens literally all the time.