This report focusses on the third point of the justice triangle, the CPS.
It is well known that the CPS take a similar approach to the police, in that whilst the police concentrate their resources and efforts on easy prey who have 'committed' non-existent crimes to gain easy detections, the CPS charge as the lowest possible level to gain easy convictions.
I think I have been pretty clear with my opinions of the modern police ethos, but when you hear about such depressing charging decisions from the CPS, it becomes slightly more understandable why the police operate as they do.
Maybe I should change the name of the blog to Hero Police, Tough Judges, & Utterly Spineless Despicable Prosecutors...
I know it can seem as thoght the system is biased in favour of the defendent, but really - "beyond all reasonable doubt" - what other test would you think is appropriate?
ReplyDeleteAs for the hoops that the prosecutors and investigators are required to jump throgh procedurally, they're there for a reason - usually connected with a prior miscarriage of justice...
Personally, I think the system is fine - what we need is to give the police the resources to be able to operate more diligently within it. We need more (good) coppers - simple as...
Martin.
I agree, Martin. 'Beyond reasonable doubt' is the only way to operate.
ReplyDeleteThe problem here is the CPS undercharging in order to secure easy convictions. It's the good old target culture again...
On this one I have genuine sympathy for the police; they arrest someone for a nasty crime such as GBH, but the CPS decide to prosecute for common assault as it's easier to convict.
More good coppers would certainly be a good thing, but aside from them being few and far between, there's no point in having a good police force if the CPS aren't going to seriously persue any of their 'clients'
Needless to say that on the day the BBC had 'experts' queuing up to say how this didn't mean that the justice system actually failed the victims of crime, and even if it did, then it would be wrong to not consider the welfare and future reform prospects of 'offenders.'
ReplyDeleteWell of course they did NNW! What with the BBC being the very epitome of public-sector PC, they'd never dream of facing up to the harsh truths!
ReplyDeleteUm, since in legal terms GBH and common assault are near identical offences (the only difference being the level of injury sustained), I fail to see how it would be easier for the CPS to secure a conviction to common assault as opposed to GBH. I'm sure it's happened but I've never come across a GBH challeneged on the basis that the victim was assaulted by the Defendant but that the doctor who provided the medical evidence was lying or mistaken as to the extent of the injuries!
ReplyDeleteAnon, OK fair point. That probably wasn't the best example.
ReplyDelete