Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: prosecution mendacity: another 18 acquitted of rape
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Peter |
A further 18 to add to the 93, 94, 95 here: criticathink.wordpress.com
A veritable epidemic flying in the face of those who would have us believe false accusations are exceedingly rare. |
|
Randall |
Legal professionals are usually quite measured and diplomatic in their criticisms or corrections of each other. The barrister in this case really tears the CPS a new one. Perhaps he sees them less as legal professionals and more as political commissars. Here's what he said
“In Court, the Prosecution asserted that the Crown had offered no evidence as a result of further statements taken from the complainants which revealed inconsistencies in their evidence. This was surprising given that there were a myriad of inconsistencies in the complainants evidence on the face of the papers, which the Crown sought to explain away in Trial 1 as natural, given the age of the complaints and the number of them.”
“Further, following acquittals in Trial 1 the Crown asserted that there had been a full review of the case and they would still continue with the prosecutions in Trial 2. To many of us involved in this trial, this appeared to be yet another example of a trial floundering on the rocks of a broken disclosure process.”
“The defence were originally served with statements, exhibits and unused material in heavily redacted form. After the defence strongly contested the redactions, the statements were un-redacted, and so far as my client was concerned it revealed that redacted from the main complainants statement had been the comments “I was in a relationship with Atiq at the time” and “Atiq was not really like the others”.
“The Crown accepted these were unforgivable redactions and assured the Court it would not be repeated. We were promised that all the exhibits and unused material would be un-redacted and served. Despite several assurances that they would be, only four un-redacted pages of exhibits ever were. Why they were not has never been explained. Now the Crown has offered no evidence in the case we will never see this material. What they might have revealed about what other “unforgiveable mistakes” the Crown had made we will never know”.
“Whilst the Crown remain the judge and jury of their own disclosure processes, injustices will continue to occur affecting both victims and defendants. This investigation spanned at least two years and cost the tax payers millions of pounds. One suspects that the Crown, in blaming the complainants for inconsistencies in their evidence, simply did not wish their woeful disclosure processes to be further exposed to the scrutiny of the public eye”.
“Whatever the truth may be in the Crown dropping the case, it is certain that the redacted passages in the main complainants evidence denied Atiq Hussain the possibility of the Court dismissing the charges when they first became before the Court, and/or a successful bail application”. |
|
hedda |
www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/18-defenda....Wn4RWjiwEkR.twitter
18 defendants acquitted of sexual offences following late disclosure of vital evidence by the prosecution
9 February 2018
|
|
|
|
