The ramifications on police budgets and careers are enormous. Next, I suspect, various individual police officers will be prosecuted, jailed and their forces fined for corrupt or incompetent behaviour. Breaches of human rights, however, will change in the future - remember, with Brexit, we voted that we no longer share the rights of other humans. So Britain will become free to brutalise innocent citizens suspected or accused by loonies with no Human Rights code to rely on.

Nervous police now saying they must "examine how the use their resources" - wonder whether that means dropping long and expensive investigations into dead celebrities and historical allegations - and, indeed, not any longer looking at fraud. "Complexity of issues" - goodness me, copspeak has deteriorated.

I think this is pretty significant as it may open the way for the falsely accused to sue police..precedent.

Well spotted Hedda! Exactly my opinion.

hedda wrote:
I think this is pretty significant as it may open the way for the falsely accused to sue police..precedent.

How so?

Since it is police negligence that is being punished, this can work both ways; negligence in examining phone texts and transcripts, for example; not checking medical records (as in David Bryant/Danny Day case); not revealing vital evidence to defence (Geoff Long's pink sink); depending on the damage done - which, in many cases, causes the falsely accused to kill themselves.

I see. I'd be curious to read the text of this recent judgement. I'd like to see if it establishes a general liability by the police when they've failed to follow reasonable courses of investigation. It might just refer to specific failures in the original investigation of John Worboys.

I certainly think that police forces and individual staff members should be liable for the consequences of failing in their statutorily mandated investigative duty. We've seen recent examples of simply not bothering to look at some of the first orders of business you would look at when investigating. Or even worse, they did look and then tried to hide it when it didn't suit the prosecution side. Saying, "Oh I was too busy" or "I didn't really understand what I was supposed to do" cuts no ice with me. That wouldn't work as a defence to withholding evidence of income from the taxman would it?

JK2006 wrote:
Since it is police negligence that is being punished, this can work both ways;

You lot are ... shall we be kind and say "confused" ?

On the one hand you salivate at the police being criticised for failing to persue a prosecution
- yet on other posts (eg Bennell) you criticise them when they do !

I think criticising police when they are incompetent or corrupt - whichever way it goes - is not confused at all; just as praising them when they get it right.

hedda wrote:
I think this is pretty significant as it may open the way for the falsely accused to sue police..precedent.

... and is also means that all those who have been hiding from the police for years WILL face further prosecutions !

What's wrong with that?

Nothing ... but I wasn't the one who was complaining about the further prosecutions against Bennell, though, was I ?

No and you're entitled to believe catching current offenders and criminals is more important than persecuting those already punished. If Bennell had been offending since his convictions, many of us would feel prosecution was fair and right.

Hopefully the decision of the High court will motivate the police to do a professional job. Which will not cost more in the cases noted as is obvious. General well documented, inquires will give a proper basis to what evidence, facts and so on can be and cannot be established. Also, less inquiries later, such as this supreme court case and so on. Seems crazy that the Metropolitan police need the Supreme Court to tell them to do a professional job before they consider it as the thing to do. Of course, following up on crimes ignored at present will add to the budget but that is what we vote governments in to do. It is their job to ensure a fully operational professional service.

I even wonder about the girl who alleged she was raped earlier highlighted in this blog. I think by four guys and the jury believed the guys. Were their mobiles etc investigated? There may of been missed evidence to support the prosecution case but because the evidence is mainly the word only of the complainant or victim then vital evidence is not only missed for the defense but also for the prosecution. The point is a professional, honest approach for almost all jobs, whether a boss, a cleaner, a judge, gas/electric/phone inquires at a help desk/call centre will often reduce costs and make life better for all well meaning citizens that is.

Sadly I see history yet again repeating itself in that not so long ago with the residential home inquiries (Big time almost 20 years ago now I think), the fishing expeditions and people responding with their story when time has passed and they are approached directly or the item is in the news meant there was no way to really know what was true and what was false, that also applies to Worboys and other cases even when as in Worboys case there was forensic and other reliable evidence to crimes evidentially committed.

I found the Worboys case was in fact a good example of clear reliable evidence "later on that is" when internal police inquiries were made about similar cases with no known connections or no publicity -a number of reported crimes were identified giving evidence against John Worboys then the search of his home and the rape kit plus other items.

In The Know wrote:
On the one hand you salivate at the police being criticised for failing to persue a prosecution
- yet on other posts (eg Bennell) you criticise them when they do !
What we want is thorough, impartial, transparent investigation - regardless of whether the outcomes produced lean towards prosecution or not. At the moment, police START from a politically-directed desired result and then look for, or take note of, or disclose only what serves that result. John Marsh succinctly describes what should happen instead

wjlmarsh wrote:

Hopefully the decision of the High court will motivate the police to do a professional job. Which will not cost more in the cases noted as is obvious. General well documented, inquires will give a proper basis to what evidence, facts and so on can be and cannot be established. Also, less inquiries later, such as this supreme court case and so on. Seems crazy that the Metropolitan police need the Supreme Court to tell them to do a professional job before they consider it as the thing to do. Of course, following up on crimes ignored at present will add to the budget but that is what we vote governments in to do. It is their job to ensure a fully operational professional service.

JK2006 wrote:
No and you're entitled to believe catching current offenders and criminals is more important than persecuting those already punished. If Bennell had been offending since his convictions, many of us would feel prosecution was fair and right.

How is NOT proceeding with one of Worboys' complainants fair ... but not proceeding with one of Bennells' unfair ?

Sorry? Police SHOULD have proceeded with those initial claims (as the court has said) and should not bother with old, pre conviction claims against Bennell.

JK2006 wrote:
Sorry? Police SHOULD have proceeded with those initial claims (as the court has said) and should not bother with old, pre conviction claims against Bennell.

Eh?

Double standards.

Today's decision was that ALL complaints should be properly investigated ... that means all of Worboys AND ALL of Bennell's.

In The Know wrote:
How is NOT proceeding with one of Worboys' complainants fair ... but not proceeding with one of Bennells' unfair ?

sorry ... should have read -

How is NOT proceeding with one of Worboys' complainants fair ... but proceeding with one of Bennells' unfair ?

I think the point is - if police investigation has been faulty it must be examined.