>> So they still anticipate they'll lose some such cases? What's the 'raw' conviction rate for
>> defended trials on indictment - I suspect 20-30% are acquitted across the board and without
>> the complications involved in historic cases.
They like to go in with a realistic chance of conviction...and then when you get the good old British jury doing it's bit...you plan for some acquittals.
Why then would you go in, in circumstances where you're likely to take a beating?
>> I'm struggling for a specific word here but scrutiny in the popular press (OK I
>> mean the Mail) tends to amount to condemnation whatever.
>>
>> If the CPS had not prosecuted DLT the feature would have been about 'victims' betrayed.
If you anticipate the Daily Mail or whoever giving you a slating, you make sure it's right before you dive in, don't you?
>> The public services cannot win in such a twisted arena. WP must have some inkling
>> of that from treatment of the MPS.
Agreed...but see above re making sure you get it right if you're likely to be under close scrutiny..what you don't do is bung it before a jury and see what happens and then claim 'oh well, that's the court system'.
>> I'm still waiting for a post forensically refuting my contention that CPS had, post Savile
>> etc, no alternative but to proceed.
I'm not sure about forensic...but what should happen is if a case has merit to be put before a jury, then off it goes...and if it doesn't, it shouldn't.
Just because Savile was a perve, it doesn't mean any other high profile t.v. type person should automatically be sent before a court.
|
