What Does It Mean?

The Crown Prosecution Service has dropped all charges against a man who was due to stand trial next year over allegations that he failed to stop at the scene of an accident, failed to report an accident and driving without due care and attention.

In words I seem to have seen before, the reviewing lawyer for the CPS said: ‘I have reviewed the file of evidence passed to me ... and have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.’

What does this mean? Does it mean that the man concerned might have committed the offences but there is not enough evidence to prosecute? Or does it mean that the charges were dropped because, as he had stated, the man was innocent?

The CPS statement leaves things in the air somewhat, but let’s assume the man was innocent.
.

‘Craven Abdication Of Responsibility’

.
Last week I took a poke at the Crown Prosecution Service for foolishly sending a case to court involving a trivial injury by a Pritt Stick. I made the point that some cases require the application of a good dose of common sense.

Yesterday a man was cleared by Sheffield Crown Court of a charge of rape falsely brought by a woman who eighteen months earlier had made a similar false claim against a man who ended up committing suicide as a result.

In the latest case, the judge said, ‘The evidence did not, and was never going to, prove rape’. Judge Patrick Robertshaw went on to deliver a scathing attack on the Crown Prosecution Service, part of which is worth repeating here:

‘The prime overriding consideration in the CPS’s decision had been merely that the complainant wished the case to go ahead. It was little short of a craven abdication of responsibility for making an independent and fair minded assessment of the case. It is quite astonishing these decisions are made by those who simply do not have experience of what happens in Crown Court because they never come into Crown Court. They sit behind desks and make decisions that result in this sort of trial taking place.’

The shocking thing is that, after making such allegations against two innocent men, the woman involved cannot be named. The law here should be changed, and quickly.

One hopes that someone will shake up the Crown Prosecution Service who are also heavily criticised this morning for bringing the case against two ten-year-old boys accused of raping an eight-year-old girl who some say may merely have been playing ‘doctors and nurses’.
.

Assault With A Pritt Stick?

.
Years ago most police prosecutions were overseen by an experienced police officer who looked through individual case notes and decided whether the evidence was such as to make proceeding worthwhile.

But then politicians tinkered with court systems and the Crown Prosecution Service became the body to decide whether cases should be sent to the courts. Since then there have been a number of instances when commonsense seems to have been thrown out of the window.

Take for example the recent case of the art teacher with an unblemished thirty-year career who was arrested on suspicion of causing actual bodily harm to a 12-year-old special needs pupil with, of all things, a Pritt Stick. In evidence it transpired that the superficial wound to the pupil’s thumb by the aforesaid glue stick was caused accidentally and the case was thrown out.

You’d have thought that someone would have looked at the case notes of this heinous crime and wondered why so much time and effort had been spent on it thus far. But no, the Crown Prosecution Service sent the case to court, incurring costs over a three-day trial in Swansea Crown Court estimated at £30,000.

The Home Secretary has promised to give some powers back to the police.

She could start by ordering that someone sort out the Crown Prosecution Service.
.