// The Police have been vilified by the public for their handling (not bringing to Court) previous cases. I suspect that there is more than an element of 'must prosecute' to avoid this. However, deliberately falsifying evidence must result in Jail time for all those involved, the Police, the CPS and the accuser.//
completely out of it - read the article
//Police have been vilified by the public for their handling (not bringing to Court) previous cases. // CPS bring the case not the police - this has been the case (ha! pun intended) since 1984
// I suspect that there is more than an element of 'must prosecute' to avoid this. // - correcticus ! DPP told the CPS to bring more cases. But if you do that - then more iffy doubtful cases come to court and there are more acquittals and not less. - I pointed this out to the DPP and no one in her office could understand the least mathematical argument. Think Sir Humphrey murmuring- "wot is dat den minister - wot he say?"
//However, deliberately falsifying evidence must result in Jail time for all those involved, the Police, the CPS and the accuser.//- er yeah but there is no element of falsifying evidence here - there is non-disclosure. Non disclosure has been around since at least the 70s and before - see In the Name of the Father ( non disclosure in the IRA bomb cases).
oph and whilst I am here - the charging criteria for Perjury is that the case was successful ( the perjured evidence led to a conviction or finding of civil liability - see Archer, Tommy Sheridan, and Aitken cases )
oh and before I finish - there was a change of prosecutor - and the next day a change in the decision not to release evidence....did he jump or was he pushed ?