The Prosecutors - the CPS

[sqounk]

Hi squonk. I would be very surprised if the guy accused of rape couldn't veto his inclusion in the programme, but I'm not sure. Maybe someone else will know.

As for 'the investigation stage' I think the CPS deliberations before charge count as investigation, and there are many cases that the CPS does not proceed with. Yes, I also understand that the CPS give all sexual offences the once over and make the final decision as to whether charges are brought or not. I also read somewhere that the OIC can take a file to them with a recommendation not to proceed and reasons why, but I'm not sure where I read that.

As for double jeopardy, you can be tried for the same offence again if 'new and compelling' evidence comes to light, fir the most serious offences at least. Here's a link -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4406129.stm

The prosecution only get one bite at the cherry as it were, with the same evidence, which is why it's important that they get the charges right the first time. Take murder for instance - they don't charge you with that, have a trial and then retrial for manslaughter if they don't like the verdict, and the defendant needs to be found 'not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter' in the same trial on the evidence available at the time.

As far as I know anyway. Contradictions and education welcome.

Hi Frantic

So essentially the CPS deal with all cases now of which 20% are actioned - interesting. In essence that must mean 80% NFA's then. I don't think that's a bad figure at all as some might and accounts for an amount of opportunistic, vengeful or mentally-challenged allegations as well as of course genuine allegations that cannot be furthered.

Good point about murder - illustrates the point perfectly!

[Pond31]

I studied TV and Film production many years ago and know that the program would have been edited only to show the CPS in a positive light, as is evident by the fact that they did not included any cases in which the defendant was found innocent. What struck me was the case of Colin Ash Smith who was accused of murder. The cps were discussing witness statements and how various people saw a man with light hair etc at the time of incident. It is when the mentioned a witness statement that described a different man being seen they said "oh I think we aren't going to use that one". They should use them ALL and not pick and choose one's that suit them.

[Peter1975]

With respect - and I value your contributions highly, Peter1975 - I think that it's a very dangerous stereotype and nothing short of insulting to claim that those who work in the public sector for little pay are of poor quality because 'of course' they would work privately and for more money if they were good enough and could.

Some poor souls are wrongfully languishing in jail because of the poor representation that they have received at the hands of the much more highly paid.

I consider myself admonished FWW... I never intended to sully the entirety of public services with my comment. I will however recover my remarks.

In my case, when I first read the cps papers, I thought I was doomed. I was damned with lies and half truths. Who would believe me? Turns out, the jury would believe me.

That's not so say that things have worked out happy ever after. Or that in a rational world things would have ever gone to court. My barrister, and countless others on the blogsophere, will testify to CPS lawyers incompetence and their removal from the real world. Never mind their rate of pay. I take that back. Another poster suggested they should work to the same standard as a jury without having the evidence cross examined before them. I think I made it clear the difficulty between making a distinction, at the investigation stage, of a false allegation versus one that is true. In my own case, I could see why I was in court, bogus or not, the allegations had merit worth putting before a jury. The CPS have a difficult job, as do the police who seem to have their hands tied and their mouths gagged.

Your own experience does not preclude mine or anyone elses. You may be offended but there are people in prison that are equally offended. I am happy to join the debate and point out that the cps machine, is actually staffed by human beings and they are actually playing with people's lives.

[Franticwithworry]

I didn't intend an admonishment, Peter1975. I may have overstated my case a little.

I agree with all you say except the assumption that all CPS are necessarily poor quality lawyers. I don't believe that they are and I do believe that they, and the Procurator Fiscal organisation in Scotland is target and conviction driven.

Why else would anyone be prosecuted for complaints that, at trial, were discarded on the basis that no crime was committed? This has happened multiple times, north and south of the border, and it's a matter of policy, rather than the quality of the decision-maker/lawyer.

[Rights Fighter]

I consider myself admonished FWW... I never intended to sully the entirety of public services with my comment. I will however recover my remarks.

In my case, when I first read the cps papers, I thought I was doomed. I was damned with lies and half truths. Who would believe me? Turns out, the jury would believe me.

That's not so say that things have worked out happy ever after. Or that in a rational world things would have ever gone to court. My barrister, and countless others on the blogsophere, will testify to CPS lawyers incompetence and their removal from the real world. Never mind their rate of pay. I take that back. Another poster suggested they should work to the same standard as a jury without having the evidence cross examined before them. I think I made it clear the difficulty between making a distinction, at the investigation stage, of a false allegation versus one that is true. In my own case, I could see why I was in court, bogus or not, the allegations had merit worth putting before a jury. The CPS have a difficult job, as do the police who seem to have their hands tied and their mouths gagged.

Your own experience does not preclude mine or anyone elses. You may be offended but there are people in prison that are equally offended. I am happy to join the debate and point out that the cps machine, is actually staffed by human beings and they are actually playing with people's lives.

There's good and bad on both sides. Some police officers investigate properly and others do not, and are only interested in that all important easy conviction.

There are some good prosecutors and prosecution sols who do the job diligently and some that play dirty tricks, and are only interested in that all important easy conviction

There are some really **** defence solicitors and barristers, some of the private client sols do not do the job properly either, and there are some fab LA sols and barristers, and private client sols & barristers who do the job to the best of their ability. Paying doesn't always equal good service. It's so important to look around and see who others have fared with whoever they went to, which resulted in wrongful convictions - or NG verdicts.

Everybody has their own experiences. Some are NFAd quickly other wait two years. Some get the right verdicts and some do not.

It is important to take advice and we've found that those who join the groups prior to charge and/or trial tend to get better results, simply because they learn from other people's experiences.