No she shouldn’t, not all claims will be false and if you start making a caveat that if you fail to prove your case you then will be in the dock that’ll put off those (possibly the majority) that are genuine cases.

What should happen is that the CPS are able to judge which cases are likely to result in a conviction, which is exactly what they are supposed to do anyway, and proceed accordingly. It seems they failed badly in this case, blame them.

Just because Le Vell was acquited doesnt necessarily make him innocent. He admitted to getting into the bed with the child. I think that alone is a very strange thing to do considering it was not his own child.

We as a society have to protect children, and of course every now and then an innocent party will be accused of something they didnt do, but we have to strive to look after our kids - and if the CPS deemed it worthy of taking this case to court, then they have my backing.

"and if the CPS deemed it worthy of taking this case to court, then they have my backing. "

But you're not basing your "backing" on anything apart from blind faith.   In reality, someone senior over-turned a decision not to prosecute, and it turns out when they got to court that they had no evidence at all.  They shouldn't get anyone's backing here. 

They have wasted taxpayer money and put the accused through hell.  The question should be asked, what changed to overturn the original decision?  If it was just a shift in the policial/media environment then that is a disgrace.

Mud sticks and although he is cleared a lot of damage has been done, but another old saying 'no smoke without fire'.  So maybe not all claims were false........

But her incoherent account and the way her story twisted and turned and no scientific physical evidence, it just amounted to slurs, and the CPS had already dropped the case once.

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 difffeent from "evidence".

What utter nonsense. They had direct evidence from an eyewitness. If they had no evidence the Judge would have found there was no case to answer and it wouldn't have went to the jury. The evidence may not have been reliable or credible but it is for the jury to decide whether evidence is credible and reliable. That does not mean it is not evidence.

In Scotland this case would not have gone to court due to no corroboration and that I would agree is how it should be. But the CPS are working in the inferior English legal system whereby someone can be convicted by only one source of evidence if that is deemed to be credible and reliable. The CPS are therefore in a position whereby if there is sufficient evidence in law for it to go to a jury in their opinion then it is for them to prosecute and for the jury to decide which evidence they believe. You can't blame CPS for that when the legal system agrees with them that there is sufficient evidence. Your seethe should be directed elsewhere.

So the mother goes free. I hope he sues the lot of them. Disgusting - it is quite clear what happened here after the first case was dropped.

"The CPS are therefore in a position whereby if there is sufficient evidence in law for it to go to a jury in their opinion then it is for them to prosecute and for the jury to decide which evidence they believe"

So to clarify from this and your previous posts - if someone makes an allegation, no matter how sketchy and inconsistent, then the CPS should prosecute, because they are bound by English law?  I don't think you understand how the system works.

So you think that 100% of allegations should be taken to court by the CPS because it is the law.  Marvellous.

Ok - so now we are getting somewhere and we can continue despite your continued insults to me and other posters.

The case was originally not deemed worthy of bringing to court by the CPS.  After a complaint by the mother, and the Mr Savile storm of course, the decision was changed.  Presumably you think the CPS was wrong in the first instance then?

Do you think the fact the Judge didn't throw it out is justification on its own that the CPS was correct to bring this to court?

Java who have I insulted? I don't know why the CPS changed their mind. Different people have different views on cases. What I am saying is there was sufficient evidence in law. Therefore in such cases if it is in the public interest (which I don't think you can argue child rape wouldn't be) it is their job to prosecute.

After the prosecution case before the defence have opened their case they can make a submission for no case to answer due to insufficient evidence in law. If the judge agrees he must acquit the accused. The defence either never made such a submission or it was rejected by the judge. The defence therefore led evidence and it went to the jury. CPS thought there was sufficient evidence in law and either the defence or the judge agreed. Had a no case to answer submission been upheld then yes CPS should have been blamed. In rape cases the evidence is usually one persons word against the other and it isn't the CPS's job to decide who is the more credible or reliable it's the jury's job.

As I've said previously this case would not have gone to trial in Scotland because there was no corroboration and to be honest that is a superior system which prevents someone from being prosecuted based on one source of evidence. That's not the case in England and its the CPS' job to prosecute when they think their is sufficiency in law and in the public interest. As I've said there was sufficient evidence based on the fact that it went to the jury.

"What I am saying is there was sufficient evidence in law"

On the one hand you say that different people at the CPS have different views.  On the other you inform us cast iron that "there is sufficient evidence in law".

I think you need to change that to "in one person's opinion" there was sufficient evidence in law?

And on the basis of that surely we can question that person's opinion at the CPS.  Especially bearing in mind it seems she over-ruled a colleague.

Come on chaps.  This was a nice fishing expedition to show the law woz doing it's job in the light of the previous incompetence.  What a glorious fit up that failed eh!!??  So much more sexual politics than anything else.  Seems to have back fired.  But failure of the television news to examine the role of cps, mother and police.  Not that I expect anything else from the 30 second sound bite 'information' for the masses tv system.

Get a relation to complain Jave.!!!

was he pissed and went to the girls bedroom to say a story and fell asleep on bed, or did he go into bed with the girl. if the latter. then questions should be asked.also was he the main reason that she got on coronation st, was she blackmailing him. I think a lot hassent come out of this , but on evidence available there was only going to be one verdictyesterday

who did she play on street ?

TheBetterBettor 11 Sep 13 13:02 
Just hope everyone´s alright at the prospect of seeing jolly old Kevin back on our screens after admitting he crawled into a bed with a six year old girl.




There is absolutely no evidence that this happened. Good job you weren't on the jury.

I still don't understand (and I am not trolling).

You say:  "It's not what the police think is sufficient evidence, nor members of the CPS nor members of the chit chat forum it's the test applied by a legally qualified judge based on the evidence heard at trial and legal precedent as to where the threshold is at."

But this is during the trial once it has already started.  You make out the CPS have zero input into whether a case should start in the first place.  At the inception the CPS surely must decide whether to bring a case to court.  At first they declined.  Then another CPS member over ruled this.  This is before it gets anywhere near a judge.

Is your arguement simply that since the judge didn't throw it out then the CPS must have been correct to bring the case to court?

Once the decision has been made to charge a suspect with a crime we then have to start preparing the case to go to court.

Our role includes preparing cases for court and presenting those cases in court.

Firstly we have to decide which court the case should be tried in. There are two types of court that we can send cases to, the Crown Court and the Magistrates' court.

Crown Court

Very serious cases are heard at the Crown Court. These are cases that involve serious crimes like: violence, murder, rape, or armed robbery.

Trials at Crown Court are heard by a Judge and Jury

The Judge:
Makes sure the trial is fair.
Gives the jury instructions about the law.
Decides the sentence if the defendant is found guilty.


Taken from the CPS website. Doesn't sound like you say Shrewd?

I'm not sure what you are referring to Bigrust.

You say:  "It's not what the police think is sufficient evidence, nor members of the CPS nor members of the chit chat forum it's the test applied by a legally qualified judge based on the evidence heard at trial and legal precedent as to where the threshold is at."

But this is during the trial once it has already started.  You make out the CPS have zero input into whether a case should start in the first place.  At the inception the CPS surely must decide whether to bring a case to court.  At first they declined.  Then another CPS member over ruled this.  This is before it gets anywhere near a judge.

I'm not making they have zero input I'm explaining to you what sufficient evidence in law is. I've already said CPS clearly thought there was sufficient evidence and they were right the judge agreed. In the same way that anyone who said he wasn't guilty, They were right the jury agreed.