Da Man Clay
T'Blades
- Dec 16, 2004
- 16,254
You can't appeal just for being found guilty.
http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/criminal/your_rights/500413.html
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Ken Barlow's Jury Out
- Thread starter Lenny Rider
- Start date
You can't appeal just for being found guilty.
http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/criminal/your_rights/500413.html
Da Man Clay
T'Blades
- Dec 16, 2004
- 16,254
You are very very wrong unfortunately. See Lost Prophets singer for an example.
It's irrelevant anyway as there will never be a time limit for disclosure of sexual offences. Hundreds of reasons people don't disclose until decades after the incident.
BensGrandad
New member
Arent the usual grounds for an appeal against conviction that the judge didnt advise the jury correctly saying that had he advised them differently the person would have been found not guilty.
Da Man Clay
T'Blades
- Dec 16, 2004
- 16,254
Depends on what the judge has advised. If the judge has made an error in summing up or points of law then that would be an entirely reasonable appeal. Just because the defendant didn't agree with being found guilty isn't though. Every single case would go to appeal otherwise.
lawros left foot
Glory hunting since 1969
My son has a friend who was prosecuted for rape about 18 months ago, an older woman accused him after a drunken night out. To cut a long story short, her hubby had found out she had had sex with the lad, so she had screamed rape. Her old man was a bit handy with his fists,so she had chosen the least painful route. After a three week trial, the lad was found not guilty, and the judge questioned why the cps had ever brought the case. So, it is not only celebs who face spurious charges and end up in court
Sounded like you were talkng more abstractly. Sorry.
Stuart Hall's attacks were on 13 victims ranging in age from 9 to 17
If that was the case Stuart Hall would probably still be walking the streets and Jimmy Savile would have been awarded a posthumous knighthood.
- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,221
Christ on a bike, there are some painful attitudes on here.
To whoever suggested a time limit for victims to come forward: what if your daughter (or son) came up to you aged 30 and told you your next door neighbour had repeatedly sexually abused them when they were ten? Would you be happy to tell them to forget it? What if your next door neighbour had been a celebrity- would you tell them to forget about it because the perpetrator was famous? I think not.
To suggest that, because an accused is found not guilty, that the aggrieved party must be making it up, is akin to saying that if a player who goes down in the penalty box didn't dive, then it must be a penalty. It's simply not true.
Sometimes (quite a lot, unfortunately, when it comes to sexual offences, due to the nature of the offence) juries don't feel they have enough to convict someone, but that doesn't mean they didn't do it. I would bet my life savings on one thing here, chaps: there are far, FAR more unconvicted abusers, rapists and assorted other offenders out there walking around than there innocent men who've been falsely accused.
If one random woman comes up to the police and says she was attacked by Celebrity X, the CPS won't prosecute without other evidence. If several, completely unconnected, women contact them, and give remarkably similar accounts, independently of each other, wouldn't that tend to suggest that there may be some truth in it? That's how these cases are coming to court.
There's a lot of people on here passing judgement with seemingly very little knowledge of the justice system, or, indeed, the way in which sexual abuse affects victims for many years afterwards. I've met plenty, and I can tell you it's frequently a traumatic experience for them even to come forward and speak about it, let alone contemplate standing in a court and having a celebrity's expensive barrister ask them "Is it not true you were flattered by my client's attentions [aged thirteen]?".
Jeez.
To whoever suggested a time limit for victims to come forward: what if your daughter (or son) came up to you aged 30 and told you your next door neighbour had repeatedly sexually abused them when they were ten? Would you be happy to tell them to forget it? What if your next door neighbour had been a celebrity- would you tell them to forget about it because the perpetrator was famous? I think not.
To suggest that, because an accused is found not guilty, that the aggrieved party must be making it up, is akin to saying that if a player who goes down in the penalty box didn't dive, then it must be a penalty. It's simply not true.
Sometimes (quite a lot, unfortunately, when it comes to sexual offences, due to the nature of the offence) juries don't feel they have enough to convict someone, but that doesn't mean they didn't do it. I would bet my life savings on one thing here, chaps: there are far, FAR more unconvicted abusers, rapists and assorted other offenders out there walking around than there innocent men who've been falsely accused.
If one random woman comes up to the police and says she was attacked by Celebrity X, the CPS won't prosecute without other evidence. If several, completely unconnected, women contact them, and give remarkably similar accounts, independently of each other, wouldn't that tend to suggest that there may be some truth in it? That's how these cases are coming to court.
There's a lot of people on here passing judgement with seemingly very little knowledge of the justice system, or, indeed, the way in which sexual abuse affects victims for many years afterwards. I've met plenty, and I can tell you it's frequently a traumatic experience for them even to come forward and speak about it, let alone contemplate standing in a court and having a celebrity's expensive barrister ask them "Is it not true you were flattered by my client's attentions [aged thirteen]?".
Jeez.
Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!
Primary data is fact
Well said EK.
cjd
Well-known member
Do you think it's time Edna for a whole new approach to court cases such as these...?
In particular, sex cases are very very personal, obviously. Most of us regard our sex lives as one of the most private things we do. How odd, that sex cases are dealt with in an open court....with the press...members of the public etc etc etc. all in attendance. No wonder women are so reluctant to press charges in many cases. I find the manner in which these court cases are held as utterly disgusting and degrading.
Surely a 'closed' court, with all parties being anonymous until a verdict is reached, is the way forward.
seagullsovergrimsby
#cpfctinpotclub
There are instances where sexual abuse takes place and the victim bottles up the incidents until revealing what happened many years later. Ask yourself a question , in the 1970s would a teenager be taken seriously if they reported it to the police compared to nowadays ?
- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,221
I don't know really. I do understand the stigma attached to cases involving sex offences, particularly for an individual who's found not guilty. But it is a central principle of England & Wales law that cases are heard in an open court (unless there are juveniles involved).
I also understand concerns that naming suspects can prejudice people against them. But history shows that with certain types of offences, there tends to be a pattern of offending, rather than just one, single incident, if that makes sense. I would imagine that it's quite rare that the sort of person who abuses a child only does it once then stops. So naming the defendant often means that other victims will come forward. Unfortunately the stigma of such crimes means victims are made to feel that they're the only one it's ever happened to, they're told by the perpetrator that nobody will believe them (also that it's their fault, that it's their dirty little secret), and it may take the realisation that you're not alone, that other people may have gone through it and that people won't think you're making it up, to persuade them to come forward.
This isn't just relating to famous defendants. What about all these priests, Scout leaders, teachers and so on who've been convicted years after their offences? Many as a result of one individual finally being courageous enough to make the step and speak out, which then leads to other victims realising that there's hope after all (they may even have buried the memory until that point as a sort of defence mechanism). It happens regularly. It's only because you don't hear about these cases that your brain makes you think it's only celebrities being targeted.
Czechmate
Well-known member
Ok , fair enough i didn't know , sick man ! Then look at the different cases as a whole and say an accuser must be reported within 15 years . i know it won't happen but just saying like.
happypig
Staring at the rude boys
Sadly it's far more prevalent than people imagine; a close relation of mine was raped by two boys when she was 15. At the time she was afraid that she would get no support from her parents and would likely get blamed for "getting herself into that situation". So she decided not to go to the police because she thought she wouldn't be believed.
Fast forward 15 years and she told me about it. My first thought was to find them and serious harm them (took her a while to talk me out of doing that) so I said she should report it. She decided she didn't wan't to drag it all up and go through it if there wasn't a strong likelihood of a conviction (as it would effectively be two peoples word against hers, it's doubtful the CPS would even take it to court).
So she lives with it. It's still there but she is in control (mostly).
However, she has said that if she found out that someone else were to come forward and say they were abused too, then she would probably go to the police too, not necessarily for herself, but to support the other person (if that makes sense).
With these current "celebrity" cases, it may be a long time ago and that, in itself, makes obtaining a conviction more difficult but if the CPS think they can secure a conviction then it's absolutely right to proceed.
Fast forward 15 years and she told me about it. My first thought was to find them and serious harm them (took her a while to talk me out of doing that) so I said she should report it. She decided she didn't wan't to drag it all up and go through it if there wasn't a strong likelihood of a conviction (as it would effectively be two peoples word against hers, it's doubtful the CPS would even take it to court).
So she lives with it. It's still there but she is in control (mostly).
However, she has said that if she found out that someone else were to come forward and say they were abused too, then she would probably go to the police too, not necessarily for herself, but to support the other person (if that makes sense).
With these current "celebrity" cases, it may be a long time ago and that, in itself, makes obtaining a conviction more difficult but if the CPS think they can secure a conviction then it's absolutely right to proceed.
drew
Drew
I think that EKs comments relate to those cases that actually go to court. In your figures it supposes that 320 cases are reported but how many of those actually go to court, ie the CPS decide there is enough evidence to be put before a jury.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/apr/23/rape-conviction-rate-high
The figures seem to show that 63% of cases that go to court result in conviction. Also, the number of cases going to court is rising which could suggest several things, better evidence gathering, more people reporting cases and/or the CPS putting cases before a jury that previously they might not have done. I speak from the point of view of having been on a jury that acquitted an accused on the basis there just was not enough evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
I'm not sure what your saying, I'm not trying to dispute EK, but provide the figures to support her, that there are far far more guilty men walking free than innocent men falsely accused.
Ernest
Stupid IDIOT
How can you have a safe conviction on a simple 'She said , he said' case without any definite evidence ?
I've always felt that people shouldn't be named until they're proven guilty, but someone pointed out to me that victims are often afraid to come forward, and naming someone gives other victims the impetus to come forward. It's a fair point.
To be proven to have made it up, presumably they'd have to be tried. I don't like the idea of taking rape victims to court.
I don't agree with your calculations.
68% of respondents said low conviction rates would make them hesitate.
Firstly, that's 68% of people that responded to a Mumsnet survey - not 68% of actual rape victims. Those 68% are guessing what they might do in a situation that most (and I clearly include us) don't fully appreciate.
Secondly, they are saying 'low conviction rates' - no one qualified what they would each consider a low conviction rate to be. No doubt the figure would be different for each respondent.
Thirdly, they didn't say that they would not report the crime, they said they would 'hesitate'.
Now to the 12% being convicted: That's 12% of reported crime. Some of those reports of rape will be false. Some will involve people withdrawing their claims etc.
The 12% that are unsafe: I know you're taking the highest figure to show that even with the highest figure, there aren't many innocent men that are convicted. Separate to that point, I would add that an unsafe conviction should be one where the proof of guilt was not beyond reasonable doubt - so even though the conviction was unsafe, there's still a good chance the defendant was guilty.