stuart hall charged

[MintTrav]

Aren't they supposed to believe that there is a reasonable chance of conviction before they prosecute? 59% success rate sounds like they are taking too many cases that won't succeed. There may be a problem with the courts but, if that is so, should the CPS be filtering out more cases? I guess they would then be criticized for the percentage of complainants they were blocking. Perhaps they genuinely don't want to be the ones preventing possible victims from getting justice (or they don't want to be seen as such). Whatever it is, I don't think 59% would be tolerated for other types of crime.

[Doobs]

Aren't they supposed to believe that there is a reasonable chance of conviction before they prosecute? 59% success rate sounds like they are taking too many cases that won't succeed. There may be a problem with the courts but, if that is so, should the CPS be filtering out more cases? I guess they would then be criticized for the percentage of complainants they were blocking. Perhaps they genuinely don't want to be the ones preventing possible victims from getting justice (or they don't want to be seen as such). Whatever it is, I don't think 59% would be tolerated for other types of crime.

You do realise how many of these rape allegations don't even make court, and the low reporting rate too?

[kinboshi]

If it is soon after the incident, there are some pretty reliable medical tests.

To show consent?

Evidence of it, yes.

A signed consent form, video evidence...?

[MintTrav]

Aren't they supposed to believe that there is a reasonable chance of conviction before they prosecute? 59% success rate sounds like they are taking too many cases that won't succeed. There may be a problem with the courts but, if that is so, should the CPS be filtering out more cases? I guess they would then be criticized for the percentage of complainants they were blocking. Perhaps they genuinely don't want to be the ones preventing possible victims from getting justice (or they don't want to be seen as such). Whatever it is, I don't think 59% would be tolerated for other types of crime.

You do realise how many of these rape allegations don't even make court, and the low reporting rate too?

Yes. And?

[the sicilian]

How are they going to convict..theres going to be no DNA or physical evidence and its word against word unless someone witnessed it...sounds like a colossal waste of time and our money by some chinless wonder in the CPS trying to make a name for themselves..

[kinboshi]

How are they going to convict..theres going to be no DNA or physical evidence and its word against word unless someone witnessed it...sounds like a colossal waste of time and our money by some chinless wonder in the CPS trying to make a name for themselves..

If he has done the crimes, and there are enough people who give evidence he might confess his guilt?  He might plead guilty?

[the sicilian]

How are they going to convict..theres going to be no DNA or physical evidence and its word against word unless someone witnessed it...sounds like a colossal waste of time and our money by some chinless wonder in the CPS trying to make a name for themselves..

If he has done the crimes, and there are enough people who give evidence he might confess his guilt?  He might plead guilty?

Hmmm.. not much of a case ... hoping he admits it all because loads of people said he did it..unfortunately in a court of law you need something called evidence... i believe the phrase is 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.... for better or for worse English law is very clear

[kinboshi]

How are they going to convict..theres going to be no DNA or physical evidence and its word against word unless someone witnessed it...sounds like a colossal waste of time and our money by some chinless wonder in the CPS trying to make a name for themselves..

If he has done the crimes, and there are enough people who give evidence he might confess his guilt?  He might plead guilty?

Hmmm.. not much of a case ... hoping he admits it all because loads of people said he did it..unfortunately in a court of law you need something called evidence... i believe the phrase is 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.... for better or for worse English law is very clear

Testimony counts as evidence.

[AndrewT]

How are they going to convict..theres going to be no DNA or physical evidence and its word against word unless someone witnessed it...sounds like a colossal waste of time and our money by some chinless wonder in the CPS trying to make a name for themselves..

If he has done the crimes, and there are enough people who give evidence he might confess his guilt?  He might plead guilty?

Hmmm.. not much of a case ... hoping he admits it all because loads of people said he did it..unfortunately in a court of law you need something called evidence... i believe the phrase is 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.... for better or for worse English law is very clear

Testimony counts as evidence.

Anecdotes are not data.

[Somerled]

There will be great difficulty with securing a conviction given the time that's passed, but also huge difficulty in running a defence.
Given that he's 80-odd and he's charged with things alleged to have happened over 25 years ago it's going to be a bit tricky to defend himself properly. Be some hefty lawyers fees on both sides anyway, as usual.

[Moskvich]

Testimony is evidence, yes. The phrase "beyond reasonable doubt" is no longer used - juries are told they must be "sure" of the defendant's guilt. I think the change was intended to slightly lessen the burden of proof required in the minds of jurors, so they didn't think, "well this could have happened and that could have happened, anything could have happened, so there's always a doubt". Using the word "sure" has its problems too though, as it does have slightly different meanings (referring to slightly different levels of certainty) in common usage.

Reasons for low conviction rates are several, quite complex, and probably not fully understood. But if anything, you could certainly argue that the low conviction rates achieved probably mean that those cases that the CPS does manage to get to court are generally all the more worthy of prosecution.

One major reason why so few cases end in a conviction is possibly the jury system and the behaviour of jurors. Since a jury is pretty much a random assortment of people, some are inevitably pretty thick and can't be relied on to pay attention, some come in with their own prejudiced views and can't be reasoned with by barristers or fellow jurors, and so on. Probably an increasing number are reluctant to convict without, for example, CCTV or DNA evidence, as the advance of technology changes people's perceptions and expectations of what "proof" should be. And the more serious the crime, you would think, the more "proof" the jury will require in order to convict. Conviction rates for sexual offences, especially historical ones, perhaps suffer both because they are serious offences that carry hefty sentences, upping the "proof" required in the minds of juries to make them willing to convict, and because they often lack this "proof" in the form of scientific evidence that they've seen on CSI.

On top of that, I'd guess that there's something of a psychological issue at play with juries whereby some of those who are capable of thought end up trying to think too hard (again, in serious cases especially). While half of them probably spend their Friday nights merrily torching the home of their local paediatrician, once they're made a juror they might tend to start thinking like someone who's supposed to think about stuff, and don't come to the same guilty verdict of which their everyday non-thinking mind would have been sure. A bit like people who obviously know a certain piece of general knowledge, but who become unsure about it when put on a TV quiz show playing for money.

So as a juror they might say, "Well it's just one person's word against another's - how can I be sure?" Whereas a week earlier they would probably have said: "Well, why on earth would the victim(s) put themselves through all this, and how can they spend hours giving evidence that sounds and feels like it's the truth, if not for the reason that it's true?"

[the sicilian]

With a persons future and in halls case pretty much the rest of his life I would want to be a couple of steps past sure... People do and say all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons... Notoriety, publicity, attention seeking, making money from the story...of course he could be as guilty as sin.... But that unfortunately is irrelevant ..you have to prove it and after all this time I think a decent defence barrister will rip it to shreds...Halls a much loved broadcaster whose fondly remembered by many and on the face of it an upstanding member of societY...who is his accuser...she had better be whiter than white as the defence rightly or wrongly will look to tear her character apart with anything from her past...perhaps not fair but it is the way these things play out..Even if convicted I can see 3 appeal judges turning it over on lack of evidence....

[Tal]

Lack of evidence won't be enough to overturn on appeal. The jury made its decision based on the evidence presented. The reason the jury did so is irrelevant.

It has to be a mistake of law, a mistake of fact or compelling new evidence.

The right wingers would say Hall isn't a much-loved broadcaster; it was only the image he portrayed that we loved, but was this all a façade. It's far too early to be making such assertions but that won't stop the press from discussing it.

The three strands of Operation Yewtree have asked questions we never imagined could have existed and i dont suppose that is likely to stop anytime soon.

[david3103]

Lack of evidence won't be enough to overturn on appeal. The jury made its decision based on the evidence presented. The reason the jury did so is irrelevant.

It has to be a mistake of law, a mistake of fact or compelling new evidence.

The right wingers would say Hall isn't a much-loved broadcaster; it was only the image he portrayed that we loved, but was this all a façade. It's far too early to be making such assertions but that won't stop the press from discussing it.

The three strands of Operation Yewtree have asked questions we never imagined could have existed and i dont suppose that is likely to stop anytime soon.

Not sure why it has to be the right wingers who say this?

Regardless, the passage of time since the alleged offence has so much impact on any consideration of guilt and innocence. Not just the potential for mis-remembered circumstance, but also the fact that the world was so very different at the time these events took place.
It's pretty likely, for instance, that at some stage in the life of most rock bands there were females who found themselves stoned/drunk/besotted and in bed with a hero. Did they give informed consent?
Will Pamela Des Barres be giving evidence in a trial soon?

[tikay]

One thing which surprises me about all this Yewtree stuff is the absence of the major rock bands, the Stadium Tour groups.

Perhaps they all behaved.