ChatterBank1 min ago
Well That Was A Waste Of Time......
43 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. 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.
TORATORATORA, 'AH: "I don't think due legal process is ever a waste of time. " - well it is when the CPS clearly haven't got the evidence to convince a jury but go ahead anyway. What's that all about?'
If the evidence weren't convincing, would the jury would not have returnt a, "Not Guilty" verdict?
If the CPS always had enough evidence to convince a jury, there would always be guilty verdicts.
If the CPS always had enough evidence to convince a jury, why would there be the need for a jury in the first place? Ditch the jury and leave it to a Judge to decide the sentence.
If the evidence weren't convincing, would the jury would not have returnt a, "Not Guilty" verdict?
If the CPS always had enough evidence to convince a jury, there would always be guilty verdicts.
If the CPS always had enough evidence to convince a jury, why would there be the need for a jury in the first place? Ditch the jury and leave it to a Judge to decide the sentence.
//The damage has been done, surely no one would consider employing him now.//
But you have to remember, Mr Giggs lives on Planet Football.
//…well it is when the CPS clearly haven't got the evidence to convince a jury but go ahead anyway.//
In England & Wales the conviction rate for jury (i.e. Crown Court) trials is around 80%. For trials in the Magistrates’ Court it is a little higher at around 85%. What you have to remember, Tora, is that very often, particularly in domestic violence cases, the evidence is simply “she said [he hit me], he said [I didn’t]’.”
I haven’t followed this particular case in any detail but I would be surprised if the evidence amounted to much more than that (apart from Saint Ferguson saying what a fine fellow Mr Giggs is). The CPS has a policy of taking such matters to trial to let a jury decide whom they believe, and they are quite robust with this, doing so wherever possible even if the alleged victim does not support a prosecution. This lack of support often comes after she (usually, but it is a "he" in about 20% of cases) wants the full might of the law brought down on her alleged assailant when she stands (or lies) bleeding and bruised, having had seven bells knocked out of her for the umpteenth time. But a couple of days later she seeks to withdraw her allegations, having decided that “he loves me really.”
So the CPS is caught between a rock and a hard place. If they allow allegations such as those made against Mr Giggs to go without action they will stand accused of bowing to bullies. If they take action and it fails, they stand accused of incompetence.
The bar for securing a criminal conviction is, quite rightly, set extremely high. Any benefit of the doubt must go to the defendant and the jury cannot convict unless they are sure. There will always be acquittals in criminal trials because there are always two versions of events put to the court. I happen to believe that jury trials are about as good a tribunal as you can get and just because there are acquittals, that does not mean that either the CPS or the jury system has failed.
But you have to remember, Mr Giggs lives on Planet Football.
//…well it is when the CPS clearly haven't got the evidence to convince a jury but go ahead anyway.//
In England & Wales the conviction rate for jury (i.e. Crown Court) trials is around 80%. For trials in the Magistrates’ Court it is a little higher at around 85%. What you have to remember, Tora, is that very often, particularly in domestic violence cases, the evidence is simply “she said [he hit me], he said [I didn’t]’.”
I haven’t followed this particular case in any detail but I would be surprised if the evidence amounted to much more than that (apart from Saint Ferguson saying what a fine fellow Mr Giggs is). The CPS has a policy of taking such matters to trial to let a jury decide whom they believe, and they are quite robust with this, doing so wherever possible even if the alleged victim does not support a prosecution. This lack of support often comes after she (usually, but it is a "he" in about 20% of cases) wants the full might of the law brought down on her alleged assailant when she stands (or lies) bleeding and bruised, having had seven bells knocked out of her for the umpteenth time. But a couple of days later she seeks to withdraw her allegations, having decided that “he loves me really.”
So the CPS is caught between a rock and a hard place. If they allow allegations such as those made against Mr Giggs to go without action they will stand accused of bowing to bullies. If they take action and it fails, they stand accused of incompetence.
The bar for securing a criminal conviction is, quite rightly, set extremely high. Any benefit of the doubt must go to the defendant and the jury cannot convict unless they are sure. There will always be acquittals in criminal trials because there are always two versions of events put to the court. I happen to believe that jury trials are about as good a tribunal as you can get and just because there are acquittals, that does not mean that either the CPS or the jury system has failed.
Thanks judge, but surely, the CPS need more than "she says, he says...etc" - eg some actual evidence of injuries, pictures, medical reports, witness statements etc?? Are you saying they go ahead anyway for fear of being accused of siding with the defendant? Surely that is not a valid basis to put all concerned through the turmoil of a trial when they know in all probability the prosecution will fail. So what now? A retrial with the same lack of evidence? Hope a different jury give the "correct" answer?
//Thanks judge, but surely, the CPS need more than "she says, he says...etc" - eg some actual evidence of injuries, pictures, medical reports, witness statements etc??//
No they don't. First of all, no physical contact is required to make out a case for Common Assault (though it is for ABH and GBH) so no evidence of injuries is always necessary. Also, very often the injuries are old and evidence of them is no longer available. More than that, I have seen many trials where the only two items of evidence is that of the alleged victim ("He hit me") and that of the alleged assailant ("No I didn't). Every case turns on its merits, of course, but they are precisely the type of cases the CPS will put before a court (either a jury or Magistrates). If they believe the alleged victim's testimony is credible they will put it before a court. They don't decide guilt or innocence. They only assess the evidence available.
//Are you saying they go ahead anyway for fear of being accused of siding with the defendant?//
They go ahead if there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction and if it is in the public interest to do so.
Domestic Violence is a big problem for the CPS. Evidence, as I said, is often thin on the ground (by its nature, it usually takes place in private). Support from victims is often sporadic. There is a balance to be found between ignoring victims and prosecuting on very scant evidence.
No they don't. First of all, no physical contact is required to make out a case for Common Assault (though it is for ABH and GBH) so no evidence of injuries is always necessary. Also, very often the injuries are old and evidence of them is no longer available. More than that, I have seen many trials where the only two items of evidence is that of the alleged victim ("He hit me") and that of the alleged assailant ("No I didn't). Every case turns on its merits, of course, but they are precisely the type of cases the CPS will put before a court (either a jury or Magistrates). If they believe the alleged victim's testimony is credible they will put it before a court. They don't decide guilt or innocence. They only assess the evidence available.
//Are you saying they go ahead anyway for fear of being accused of siding with the defendant?//
They go ahead if there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction and if it is in the public interest to do so.
Domestic Violence is a big problem for the CPS. Evidence, as I said, is often thin on the ground (by its nature, it usually takes place in private). Support from victims is often sporadic. There is a balance to be found between ignoring victims and prosecuting on very scant evidence.
Actually it was the Judge
https:/
https:/
