Go Get Em Mr Bates.....

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68805556

I'll donate to the fund.

[naomi24]

Me too.  

[ToraToraTora]

I bet those sociopathic thugs didn't realise they were taking on a proper hardman. He has been tenacious and relentless, good on him.

[Rosetta]

So would I. But is there a legal basis and who would do it? Presumably the money would go towards hiring a barrister.

Before all this I believed CPS were the only people who could prosecute 

[Peter Pedant]

have we er spotted the irony..... ( baaaarp!)

he is going for a private prosecution without going frooda CPS - oo-er Mrs ! didnt someone find out there were draw-backs to that, but still um went ahead 565 times ?

I believe they did

[Peter Pedant]

er not sure about this- I think the CPS have the power to take over a prosecution and then cease ( as they did in Stephen Laurence)

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/private-prosecutions

[ToraToraTora]

rosetta, anyone can prosecute a criminal case privately, it's not common but it does happen.

[brainiac]

Me too.  This and the tainted blood scandal are the two things that have made me most angry in my entire life.

[naomi24]

I'm with you all the way there, brainiac.  Words are not enough.  

[rockyracoon]

I'd donate.

[Rosetta]

Didn't know that ttt

[New Judge]

“…er not sure about this- I think the CPS have the power to take over a prosecution and then cease ( as they did in Stephen Laurence)”

The CPS does have that power, but it was not used in the Stephen Lawrence case. The private prosecution went ahead (although the case against two of the five defendants was dropped before the trial due to lack of evidence). The other three defendants were acquitted.

Mr Bates needs to be cautious. Private prosecutions are rare for a very good reason – they are often unsuccessful. I’m not sure what charges he has in mind, but this is clearly a very complex matter and if he is considering charges such as perjury it is going to be very involved. The final warning is, of course, that once an unsuccessful private prosecution has taken place it will be  impossible to prosecute the same person for the same offence again. The Criminal Justice Act 2003, which provides for a retrial if new and compelling evidence comes to light is not available for any offence liable to be alleged as a result of this affair.

[Peter Pedant]

thanks for the correction NJ. 

I cannot think of the charges one cd bring against the management - who are bleating day after day, "we knew nossing"

[davebro3]

I hope Ms Vennels is bricking it!

[Peter Pedant]

dja wanna have a go at the difference between Theft and false accounting? 

one tried - theft act ( 68) and fraud act ( 06) - and I thought "no that doesnt do it for me"

[THECORBYLOON]

NJ, S.78 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 relates to "New and compelling evidence".

S.79 of the Act refers to "Interests of justice".

In the Explanatory Notes, it states at the end of the notes for S.79, "Both sections 78 and 79 apply where a previous prosecution case may have been led by a private rather than public prosecutor."

[New Judge]

NJ, S.78 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 relates to "New and compelling evidence".

S.79 of the Act refers to "Interests of justice".

In the Explanatory Notes, it states at the end of the notes for S.79, "Both sections 78 and 79 apply where a previous prosecution case may have been led by a private rather than public prosecutor."

I'm not disputing that Corby (though I didn't mention "in the interests of justice").

The issue is that those sections only apply to a very limited number of very serious offences. The list is provided at Schedule 5 of the Act:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/schedule/5

I would suggest that charges for none of those are likely to follow from the Post Office fiasco.

[Rosetta]

NJ , in your opinion are the Post Office management likely to face any criminal  charges, in the publics' eyes they deserve to be

[THECORBYLOON]

I mentioned S.79 only because it was includeded in my quote ftom the Act.

Reading the applicable offences in the Schedule it is clear none would apply in this case. 

That means a re-trial would not be an option whether or no it was a CPS or a private prosecution.