Comments on: Was the case against an immigrant Gypsy gang dropped because it wasn’t in the public interest? http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/2010/04/14/was-the-case-against-an-immigrant-gypsy-gang-dropped-because-it-wasnt-in-the-public-interest/ Watching the Daily Mail Thu, 19 Jan 2012 21:38:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: Duncan http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/2010/04/14/was-the-case-against-an-immigrant-gypsy-gang-dropped-because-it-wasnt-in-the-public-interest/comment-page-1/#comment-230812 Duncan Mon, 07 Jun 2010 00:52:37 +0000 http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/?p=4933#comment-230812 @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. @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.

]]> By: Duncan http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/2010/04/14/was-the-case-against-an-immigrant-gypsy-gang-dropped-because-it-wasnt-in-the-public-interest/comment-page-1/#comment-230811 Duncan Mon, 07 Jun 2010 00:44:36 +0000 http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/?p=4933#comment-230811 "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. “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.

]]>