Savile Prosecutors Could Lose Their Jobs, Says Downing Street

[Gromit]

Anyone think for one minute that will happen?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9795565/Jimmy-Savile-prosecutors-could-lose-their-jobs-over-fiasco-says-Downing-Street.html

[youngmafbog]

Unlikley, it is very easy to point the finger years on (when different rules and attitudes are ni place).

[New Judge]

I think it goes into the same drawer as these:

Overweight benefit claimants COULD lose their benefits if they do not exercise.

Foreign criminals COULD face deportation on their release from prison.

People committing domestic burglary COULD be jailed for up to fourteen years.

The people of the UK COULD be given a vote of their continued membership of the EU.

MPs COULD get a pay rise of 32% (oh! Sorry! wrong drawer!)

[shoota]

'As ye sow so shall ye reap.'

Back in the day (old sweat talking) when the Police prosecuted their own cases, we would often know beyond a shadow of doubt that an offence had been committed but not have absolutely conclusive proof.
In those cases a senior officer would often decide to 'give it a run' and put the case before magistrates and let them decide on the balance of evidence.
Than along came the CPS, took this decision making away from the Police, became subject to a different set of rules and budgetary controls and started the policy of only putting cases before a court that were virtually assured of conviction.
I'm sure that pre CPS many of these allegations would have been 'tested'.

[New Judge]

Yes quite so, shoota.

The CPS has a two part test (1) realistic prospect of a conviction and (2) in the public interest. Very often prosecutions fail to reach court under part one when in fact the decision should be made by a jury or bench of Magistrates.

Interestingly, in most areas from Jan1st the police have begun prosecuting their own traffic case without CPS assistance in court (unless the matter goes to trial or is complicated by some legal matter)..

[shoota]

Those of us who had experience of presenting our own (minor) cases would pull our hair out at the standard of prosecution when the CPS first started.
Some were completely inept.

[modeller]

This is reminiscent of all those child abuse cases, where those in authority failed yet again to take action.

[Orderlimit]

The trouble was shoota, the standard of evidence presented by the police became so poor that the CPS had to take a role in pre-charge decision making.

[shoota]

On what experience do you base that remark Orderlimit?

[Orderlimit]

Personal experience Shoota. In my opinion from around 2002 onwards the standard of pre-charge advice files and pre-trial prosecution files dropped in standard and lacked evidence (even minor offence). There are many reasons for this but probably beyond the scope of this thread to give views.

[jno]

I'm having trouble finding the quote that justifies the Telegraph's headline.

[i]Asked this morning if 'heads should roll at the CPS' because of the failings, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: 'That is a matter for the relevant authorities'.[i]

Asked a leading question, he dodged it by replying "That's not for me to say", which the paper has transcribed as "it could happen". Dodgy reporting, I think.

[New Judge]

The CPS did not start making charging decisions in 2002, Orderlimit. They did so from their formation in 1986. What's special about 2002?

[Orderlimit]

Sorry for any confusion New Judge, I was referring to the 'Statutory Charging' system that was rolled out from 2004 and fully operating in police station by 2006. (prior to this custody sergeants usually made the decision on the offence and whether to charge having applied the same two part test).

2002 is just my personal observations of the decline in policing standards and the service to the public (factors include the reactions to the HRA, the Mcpherson report, recruitment and promotion processes).

[New Judge]

Thanks for the clarification, OL.