he will always have this stigma tho

You don't need a jury to test cases Coach the majority of sensible people on here said there appeared to be no case to answer yet how much do the CPS get to work that one out?

I feel desperately sorry for him, what an absolute nightmare he has been through.

well I don't think the girl should get away with this, obviously if u punish her it will mean that actual victims will maybe be afraid to speak up I no that's not right but she shouldn't get away with this its just not right

i am willing to bet that a tabloid will offer her 100k to tell her story and she will waive her right to anonymity


Then she should pay the legal fee´s not kevin/tax payer

Guilty of rape looked a tad unlikely when after the medical exam the girl appeared to still be a virgin .How this have ever
got to court is quite unbelievable,you would imagine were he guilty ,this would be far from the end of matters ,the young
lady in question must have family friends etc who might lets say look for a bit of revenge ,but then again perhaps kev is
a close part of the family this girl is 17 and tbh I would hold the mother as responsible for her actions as her ,Name the
Mother IMO ,as far as Im concerned if someone is so malicious to make up this kind of a story I would name the girl as well
she is a danger to any man who comes in contact with her

A very sad case indeed ,I would imagine LeVell has aged 10 years in the last 2 weeks ,yet alone the rest of the time these
accusations have been going on ...

Poor show from Kev outside pub 'I'm off for a drink' thought he was an alcoholic and family applauding him

he was desperate for ingredients

if that was the best the prosecution could come up with, they shouldn't be practicing law

I really have no idea how he must have felt but its bound to have been absoloute hell and as 1 person already said must have aged him 10 years

brigust1 10 Sep 13 17:43 Joined: 07 Dec 01 | Topic/replies: 6,790 | Blogger: brigust1's blog

You don't need a jury to test cases Coach the majority of sensible people on here said there appeared to be no case to answer yet how much do the CPS get to work that one out?

Clearly the CPS were right though and there was a case to answer in law for it to have been put to the jury. The Defence would have been entitled to make an no case to answer submission once the prosecution closed it's case. They either didn't or it was rejected by the judge. It's not their job to prosecute if they think he did it or if they think he will definetally get convicted it's their job to prosecute when there is sufficient evidence in law for charges to go to the jury and for the jury to fulfil their duty as arbiter of facts and deliver a verdict.

But there was a case to answer in law so it is the job of the CPS to prosecute. If the judge decided that there wasn't then that's fair enough but he didn't as it went to the jury to be considered.

If they believe there was sufficient evidence in law for it to go to a jury, they prosecuted and it went to the jury what exactly are you blaming them for?

You don't really understand what sufficient evidence in law is do you?

And I wouldn't mind betting that is exactly what they say. 'We had to go to court to avoid being accused of a cover up' by the media.

'Not guilty' does not automatically imply 'innocent'.

It merely implies not enough evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt. Under the strict letter of the law, most sexual offence cases involving consent are going to struggle to get a conviction.

I have no idea who this actor is by the way. I never watch Corrie (or any of the other ones).

''The Chief Crown Prosecutor, Nazir Afzal, examined the file in detail looking at all the allegations and evidence.
But after weighing it up he decided there was insufficient evidence to charge le Vell with any of the abuse or rape allegations.

Both parties were both told of this decision in late December 2011 and Le Vell was said to be ‘relieved and delighted’ at the decision.
However the victim’s mother was said to be furious and after speaking with police officers she made a formal complaint against the CPS in February 2012.

The girl also returned to the police in March 2012 told them she had forgotten to mention other rapes she had suffered at the hands of the actor.

The Jimmy Savile sex scandal erupted in October 2012 causing a wholesale re-evaluation of sex cases, particularly those offences against children.

The CPS say that in the light of the formal complaint they decided to review the case and Alison Levitt QC, the DPP’s Principal Legal Advisor, overruled Mr Afzal’s decision.
In fact she concluded there was sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and that the earlier decision not to prosecute should be overturned.''

Due to recent legal aid cuts he cannot recover his costs.

The state can now prosecute you without penalty

History can I remind you the you are innocent until 'proven' guilty. That is our justice. Therefore he is innocent. Whether you like it or not.
Nazir Afzal was exactly right and although he can sit back and say 'I told you so' I frankly don't care who was wrong or who was right. Bringing this case to court was an injustice and someone should pay for that decision. It wasn't simply an error of judgement it was verging on criminal. I agree with Mafeking, she should be sacked. You cannot play politics and games with peoples lives in this cavalier way.

I agree, half the cast of The Bill look well shifty.

"If they believe there was sufficient evidence in law for it to go to a jury, they prosecuted and it went to the jury what exactly are you blaming them for? "

From what I have read they didn't have any evidence at all?  That is why people are upset with the CPS.  Unless "evidence in law" means something difffernt from "evidence".