Why only current rape cases?

All current rape and serious sexual assault cases in England and Wales are to be reviewed “as a matter of urgency” to ensure evidence has been disclosed.

Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders warned the review could see “a number of cases” dropped.

It comes after the collapse of several rape trials because evidence had not been shared with defence lawyers.

BBC legal correspondent Clive Coleman said there had been a failure to share digital evidence in each of the cases.

On that basic principle of 10 guilty go free rather than one innocent get jugged, shouldn’t we be devoting some resources to those serving sentences?

28 comments on “Why only current rape cases?

  1. Get with the programme Tim.

    Or I’ll read out a list of every woman who has been raped.

    Which is all of them.

  2. That saying has served its purpose. Now that the Progs are in charge it has been reversed – better than ten innocent men be jailed than…well, anything really.

  3. I see they are pushing the “lack of resources” angle, which is clearly balls. The obvious question which no one is asking is the clear correlation between this massive increase in thee incidents and Saunders’ Big Push for more rape convictions. Maybe it really is simply correlation, but I see means, motive and opportunity here.

  4. shouldn’t we be devoting some resources to those serving sentences?

    Yes.

    Legal aid to serving prisoners to seek review

  5. If I were in charge I’d start with the current cases and announce that investigation would then proceed to historical cases.

    I wonder what would be the best way to prioritise those: any suggestions?

  6. Why just rape?

    Are they saying they treated rape differently to any other crime when it came to the processing of evidence and if so, why? And if not, then the problem is endemic and a clear out of the CPS is required.

  7. Yes of course, but that would only expose further uselessness within the CPS / Police.

    Putting people on remand for 2 years now means the punishment is the process.

  8. If those already jailed have their cases reviewed it will bring to light the travesty which was Operation Yewtree.

    A travesty created by Marxian feminist bullshit –tho’ not all those pushing the lies were overt marxfem scum. Which would include BluLab trash. Most especially the FFC herself. Under whose time at the Home Office the entire corrupt and wicked farce was conceived and brought into existence.

    Which is why they don’t want a review of the courthouse scams that have already been got away with.

    Hopefully those jailed can get their lawyers on the job.

  9. @allthegoodnamesetc.

    “Putting people on remand for 2 years now means the punishment is the process.”

    I was drinking with a buddy who’s up before the beak for charges relating to the Thanet election campaign. No, not last year’s election, the 2015 one. Earliest trial date- may this year. Three years.

    It’s cost him one job and his old career. There’s a bloody good chance he’ll be found not guilty.

    Go figure.

  10. Bloke in North Dorset said:
    “Why just rape? Are they saying they treated rape differently to any other crime when it came to the processing of evidence?”

    Could be others, but probably mostly about rape. This is, I think, mostly about complainants’ phone messages & internet postings around the time of the alleged offense. Rape is probably the main crime where the complainant’s consent is an important part of whether a crime has been committed, so it’s probably the main crime where such evidence is commonly relevant.

  11. I know 3 lawyers who acted for a time as prosecutors. All 3 were quite stupid. Nearly all of them are. A very large part of the problem stems from that stupidity.

    Firstly, they make stupid decisions.

    Secondly, they have constructed a system so inefficient, so horrible, so incredibly wasteful of resources that of course they are always short of resources.

    Defence lawyers will never argue for systemic changes because the inefficiency always works in their favour. This is so even when it gets their clients convicted, because they really don’t care about that, what with the possibilities of more fees for appeals, re-arguments, applications to open up convictions et endless cetera.

    Lawyers are not necessarily clever. Very many of hem are stupid but with a great capacity for memorization.

  12. “Are they saying they treated rape differently to any other crime when it came to the processing of evidence and if so, why?”

    Pressure to get a result to get convictions up. If you want to see a really ridiculous case there is the “walking across the station assault” which is probably unique in prosecuted rapes in that it is entirely on video. So it’s nothing to do with money, it’s to do with political/feminist manipulation and b ullying.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12144963/Commuter-who-walked-past-actress-at-Waterloo-station-cleared-of-bizarre-sex-assault-claim.html

    As far as I am aware the actress has not been prosecuted despite this assault requiring skills that would make Penn and Teller looks like kids who’d just found one of those magic sets.

  13. @Paul

    “A CPS spokesman said: “There was sufficient evidence for this case to proceed to court and progress to trial.”

    The woman made the allegation and….er…that’s it.

  14. Off topic

    Lots of adverts on TV about the forthcoming winter Olympics.

    I can think of Torvill & Dean, Robin Cousins and Eddie the Eagle but that’s about it.

    Not really a GB thing is it? We’ve never bought into the excitement of pulling on a body condom and sliding down a mountain on a tea tray.

  15. “@Paul

    “A CPS spokesman said: “There was sufficient evidence for this case to proceed to court and progress to trial.”

    The woman made the allegation and….er…that’s it.”

    According to the article there was a trial which proceeded as far as a jury verdict.

  16. In answer to my own question it probably is restricted to rape cases because the police are under pressure to believe the “victim”. Any investigation that then undermines the allegation will be seen as dismissing the allegations.

    So for PR reasons it’s far better to pass on the burden of reviewing the evidence more thoroughly to the CPS.

  17. AndrewC

    Actually tea-tray-sliding is something we excel at and have good chances with medals.
    I once met the skeleton team at a service station in Germany, they were on their way back from a series of comps. in Bavaria in their min-bus. They were really funny and the girls were surprisingly… girlish.

  18. “A CPS spokesman said: “There was sufficient evidence for this case to proceed to court and progress to trial”

    There was sufficient evidence because they submitted the CCTV evidence speeded up twice in order that it ‘synced up’ with the elaborate timing of events alleged by the prosecution.

    I have no idea why no one was fired for that, let alone prosecuted. If the defence hadn’t noticed he’d been fucked. An utter disgrace.

  19. Uncovering evidence that they had achieved guilty verdicts though the unethical and corrupt practices of their own prosecutors is not in their interest.

  20. “Paul

    “@Paul

    “A CPS spokesman said: “There was sufficient evidence for this case to proceed to court and progress to trial.”

    The woman made the allegation and….er…that’s it.”

    According to the article there was a trial which proceeded as far as a jury verdict.”

    @Paul

    I know. I was commenting on the CPS spokesman’s comment that there was ‘sufficient evidence’ There was no evidence worthy of the name beyond the woman’s allegation.

  21. @Julia: shouldn’t she have been sectioned?

    @BiND: “Why just rape?” Because that’s the most conspicuous case of a voluntary activity being converted into a political crime.

    Shouldn’t the head of the CPS be in jail by now?

  22. Best case scenario is the head of the CPS being moved to another government job. With her ‘expertise’, something like Counter-Terrorism should have sufficient scope to make everyone’s lives worse.

  23. The problem is the morons in the College of Policing changed policy in response to demands from victims:

    http://www.college.police.uk/News/College-news/Pages/College-response-to-the-Henriques-Report.aspx

    When a senior judge pointed out that this led to bad practice, the morons ignored it. And it was pointed out again

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/dec/14/met-chief-repeats-call-for-changes-to-guidance-on-sex-offence-inquiries

    Basically the cretin in charge of the College needs to go. Anyone who supported him also needs to go. The CPS should be closed down and they need to start from scratch, by hiring a small number of really good lawyers.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.