Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: ROLF HARRIS - specifics
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
JK2006 |
I repeat again the above direct quotation from the lead Judge (appeals have three judges)...
For some reason the necessary checks had not been made, or had not properly been made, at the time of the trial, said the judge.
The relevant information was available to be found and disclosed, but that did not happen: "In our judgment this was a significant failing."
Am I wrong in thinking that it is a Judge's duty to refer this failing of police investigations to the CPS for possible prosecution of the officers for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice or malfeasance in public office? And am I wrong in suggesting the CPS official him or herself who authorised prosecution without demanding full police examination of the witness (as demanded by Sir Richard Henriques in his report) should also face prosecution for malfeasance in public office? Surely it is an essential ingredient in the Code of Conduct for employees of the CPS that they examine in detail ALL SIDES of a possible prosecution before proceeding? And if police have not done that; refusing to prosecute? How much tax monies are being wasted on stupid and unnecessary trials (some reversed on appeal)? |
|
JK2006 |
What I find frightening is that this detail, carried in a tiny local paper, is totally absent from major media reports. Also how such a stunning conclusion can not affect the other verdicts in the trial. How can such a total failure to disclose such vital information not contaminate the entire prosecution case? Really, it is time independent investigators examined police, CPS and judicial behaviour.
www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/regional/rolf-...overturned-1-8247747
As you see (above) it was not a failure to disclose (almost always a serious matter) but a failure to discover that has cancelled that conviction.
For some reason the necessary checks had not been made, or had not properly been made, at the time of the trial, said the judge. The relevant information was available to be found and disclosed, but that did not happen: "In our judgment this was a significant failing."
|
|
|
|
