ChatterBank4 mins ago
Thankful I'm not on the jury of this one!
I know the jury will hear a lot more evidence than is reported, but surely there is no way of proving either way?
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by hc4361. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
One last try from me, hc, then I’m packing it in.
The CPS lay charges based on the evidence available. (There is also a secondary “public interest” test but that does not concern us here). They lay charges regardless of the plea intentions of the accused. Indeed those intentions are not even known when the charges are determined. Your contention seems to be (and correct me if I’m wrong) that the case is without merit and should not have been put before a court (“...but surely there is no way of proving either way” “...there can be no evidence surely”).
The CPS (who possess all the facts, remember, not just the snippets we are being fed) obviously thought otherwise. They thought that there was a reasonable chance of a successful prosecution. For a prosecution to succeed (in any matter) all that is needed is the testimony of one witness. No corroborating evidence is needed. No CCTV footage is required. One witness can provide the evidence required to convict. Whether that witness is convincing enough to persuade a jury or bench of Magistrates to convict is precisely why trials are held. I am by no means suggesting that this particular case will end in a conviction. Far from it, mainly because I don’t have all the evidence. But it must have warranted being put before a jury or the CPS would not have authorised the charge.
The CPS lay charges based on the evidence available. (There is also a secondary “public interest” test but that does not concern us here). They lay charges regardless of the plea intentions of the accused. Indeed those intentions are not even known when the charges are determined. Your contention seems to be (and correct me if I’m wrong) that the case is without merit and should not have been put before a court (“...but surely there is no way of proving either way” “...there can be no evidence surely”).
The CPS (who possess all the facts, remember, not just the snippets we are being fed) obviously thought otherwise. They thought that there was a reasonable chance of a successful prosecution. For a prosecution to succeed (in any matter) all that is needed is the testimony of one witness. No corroborating evidence is needed. No CCTV footage is required. One witness can provide the evidence required to convict. Whether that witness is convincing enough to persuade a jury or bench of Magistrates to convict is precisely why trials are held. I am by no means suggesting that this particular case will end in a conviction. Far from it, mainly because I don’t have all the evidence. But it must have warranted being put before a jury or the CPS would not have authorised the charge.
In the circles I used to move in (local branch of big international business) there were many people that I had been introduced to that I didn't "know". Some of these were "friends of friends" and some were on secondment from foreign branches of the organisation. In social circumstances there were times when I would be alone with someone who i did not know but who was "vouched for" by reason of being part of that circle. I could see that kind of circumstance existing here.
What happened in this case...well silly to get so drunk but as i said, no excuse for taking advantage.
What happened in this case...well silly to get so drunk but as i said, no excuse for taking advantage.
According to the current UK Law on "consent" it would be held that she was too drunk to consent and that, given the huntsman confesses he knew this was the case, he is guilty; however, there is still a chance the jury will let him off.
Sexual Offences Act 2003: A person consents if he or she agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice.
CPS Guidance: People who have consumed alcohol may reach such a level of drunkenness that they no longer have the capacity to give consent. The courts recognise that this stage may be reached well before they become unconscious.
Our current law on drunkenness is that the whole population has a duty of care to the drunk. This is a radical departure from the Aristotelian and religious ethical position was that a person took the decision to commit a crime/have sex/jump off the bridge when they took the decision to become drunk and incapable.
http://
Sexual Offences Act 2003: A person consents if he or she agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice.
CPS Guidance: People who have consumed alcohol may reach such a level of drunkenness that they no longer have the capacity to give consent. The courts recognise that this stage may be reached well before they become unconscious.
Our current law on drunkenness is that the whole population has a duty of care to the drunk. This is a radical departure from the Aristotelian and religious ethical position was that a person took the decision to commit a crime/have sex/jump off the bridge when they took the decision to become drunk and incapable.
http://
Not quite a duty of care Johnny. If I see one propped up in a doorway or lying in the gutter, i don't have to do anything, can just pass by. What i can't do is use their state as an excuse to treat them as any different from someone who isn't drunk ie have non consensual sex. If the woman in question had had a migraine and taken strong medication to deal with it, then i am sure that this discussion would be different even if her alleged behaviour had been the same.
You clearly know more about the law than me New Judge but:-
A few years ago I served on a jury where an elderly man was charged with raping the woman he lived with. One night he came home worse the wear due to drink, led her to the bedroom, not forcibly - her evidence- she undressed one side of the bed and he the other. She also testified he couldn't "do the deed" due to the drink. They both got dressed and returned to watching TV. The following day the woman told her daughter about what happened and she said "Mum he raped you". They went to the police and it ended up in court.
The CPS must have thought there was a case to answer here. We found him Not Guilty.
A few years ago I served on a jury where an elderly man was charged with raping the woman he lived with. One night he came home worse the wear due to drink, led her to the bedroom, not forcibly - her evidence- she undressed one side of the bed and he the other. She also testified he couldn't "do the deed" due to the drink. They both got dressed and returned to watching TV. The following day the woman told her daughter about what happened and she said "Mum he raped you". They went to the police and it ended up in court.
The CPS must have thought there was a case to answer here. We found him Not Guilty.
There must have been a prima facie case, Dodger,or the judge would have stopped it at the end of the prosecution evidence and you'd have been directed to return a verdict of not guilty, since no jury properly directed , in his opinion, could have convicted.
You, of course, saw all the evidence and all the cross-examination. What prosecution witnesses have had recorded in witness statements , and what, if anything, the defendant has said in interview, on which the CPS make their decision, is not always what the witnesses say in court or how they appear to the jury, nor do the CPS know how credible, or not, the defence case will appear. So long as there's a reasonably good prospect of conviction and it's in the public interest to bring the prosecution, the CPS will proceed.
You, of course, saw all the evidence and all the cross-examination. What prosecution witnesses have had recorded in witness statements , and what, if anything, the defendant has said in interview, on which the CPS make their decision, is not always what the witnesses say in court or how they appear to the jury, nor do the CPS know how credible, or not, the defence case will appear. So long as there's a reasonably good prospect of conviction and it's in the public interest to bring the prosecution, the CPS will proceed.
Woofgang - I can't give you a definitive 'ratio' as I am not a statistician nor do I have access to the figures, but I was Police Officer for 26 years and have direct knowledge of three cases from the earlier years when I was in uniform and for the last 4 years of service worked in a unit that contained the domestic violence unit and sex crime unit - rape allegations were thankfully relatively rare but a goodly number were withdrawn for the reason that the allegation was spurious.
If you really bent my arm and forced me to guess at a number I would say 1 in 4, but bear in mind that would be affected by the nature of the area in which I was based.
If you really bent my arm and forced me to guess at a number I would say 1 in 4, but bear in mind that would be affected by the nature of the area in which I was based.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank8 mins ago
ChatterBank15 mins ago
ChatterBank32 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles43 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.