>> I assume this court case was authorised by the CPS and therefore paid for by
>> us. Why didn't anyone in the CPS think this through?
>>
>> I couldn't care less about the Lawson/Saatchi reputation, future career and earning potential. I do
>> very much care when civil servants spend my money without having thought about the way
>> the court case would pan out, or the line that the defence counsel would adopt.
IIRC the usual test is for there to be a significant prospect of conviction. I cannot remember what the probability test is but clearly at least evens. If only certainties were prosecuted there'd be a massive and understandable outcry by victims.
I suspect the way this one went was probably not predictable. Either the prosecution witnesses were less credible than at first estimated or it is one of those random and utterly surprising verdicts juries occasionally produce. Ponting was the cause celebre of recentish past.
I'd go for the former. The armchair jury here have only heard parts of the evidence the media saw fit to publish/broadcast. In the print media that means the shocking/salacious and in broadcast highlights and summary. The jury saw the lot including the demeanour of witnesses and what exactly was said about how spending was (or was not) controlled or monitored. The judge would have directed them very carefully on the law and after eight hours they were agreed that the burden/standard of proof was not made out.
Which is very different from saying it's not fishy or that a civil action might have a different outcome.
|
