Commuter cleared of walk by sexual assult at train terminus

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02 ... 85748.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02 ... 17484.html

Waterloo is a station I know well.

This incident was to have taken place in an area with this CCTV evidence. So ether its couldn't have taken place that location, or the accuser account doesn't add up.

The sad thing is we know the acquitted's name, we have his photo, we know his profession. Under UK law we don't know anything about the accuser, other than she is an award winning actress.

This is not the case in a violent robbery, non-sexual assault, attempted murder. No, the answer is not more anonymity, this concept is legally flawed. I understand why it exists, but it can't solve that problem at the expense of legal principle. Otherwise we might as well have secret trials, and do away with due process.

There has to be an evidential threshold. The argument about sexual assault behind closed doors doesn't apply here.

Any crime that take place where there is lack of evidence. That is what it is. It is frustrating for those people. However even if certain types of crime produce more of these, or there is a stigma this is not a valid solution to that problem. Also we can't lower the bar. We are all equal under the law.

The burden of proof is on the claimant. It was clear that there was never any evidence to prove the plaintiff's and the prosecution's claims. The case should have never gone to trial.

I have to wonder how many more men have go through the Hell of false rape charges before the lawmakers and the courts decide that such charges should be dropped when there is a lack of evidence of any crime having been committed.

Agreed.

To explain how it works in the UK:

The police can bring someone in for questioning, they can arrest someone. They can't charge without the CPS's (Crown Prosecution Service) approval. It is the CPS's responsibility to ensure there is enough evidence to go to trial.

However the footage was also slowed down, so some responsibility lies with those folks too.

Also normally they cannot hold someone more then 24 hours without charge, in rare case it can be extend to 36 by a senior officer, beyond that it requires a specific extension warrant from a Magistrates court to a Magistrates court to 96 hours, which an extra 12 hour if necessary to preserve evidence. Terrorism Act allows 28 days.

It depend on the police force how they would handle it. They may question under caution, then let the guy go with conditions e.g. he stays in the country. Or they may hold for 24 hours whilst they gather evidence.

It also may be influenced by how long ago the crime was to have happened, whether they consider the person to be a flight risk, resources, etc.

Being accused of sexual assault when you are innocent can cause some of the mental illnesses associated with sexual assault. Especially if the whole investigation centres around you.

They refused to prosecute my case because there wasn't enough evidence. The police believed me, but it would have been pointless to go to trial. So at least here it seems that they do not prosecute without some evidence.

I understand that can be very frustrating. Evidence is need to prosecute, that is just how it has to work. I don't think anonymity actually solves issues like that.

Here they had CCTV, but they didn't properly check it, and played at the wrong speed. Plus it didn't show an assault taking place.

It wasn't like the accused was identified by the accuser. He wasn't picked out of a line up. He was just the only person who was close enough in the time and places. He had the misfortue of being there at the time.

However this woman, either was mistaken about the time an place or soemthign doesn't add up. As there would have been other suspects otherwise.

Yes, of course they cannot prosecute without evidence.

The whole thing seems quite bizarre. I'm not sure how it even went that far without evidence.

I think becuase CCTV usually results in more clear cut evidence. If they find it is usually no contest. When I was assaulted (not sexually) it was no contest.

The police are under pressure to treat these cases seriously. They should do that, but they have to also remain objective and that is not always easy. They search through the CCTV for anyone anyone near to this woman.

I feel bad for victims when this happens.

The press know who this woman is, but there is an injunction. They can only be so specific or they are breaking the law. The same doesn't usually apply to other assaults, robbery, attempted murder, etc.