boyfriday Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Without a statement from a "victim" the Crown can't prove a crime was committed. "She said I could fondle her tits your honour". I was responding to the question whether the 'victim' had to 'press charges'. If the 'crime' can be corroborated by third parties who witnessed it independently, then pursuing a prosecution might still be in the public interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 How do they deal with murder cases? The crown has no need to compel anyone to bring charges because it does so in its own name. Both of you are confused, but the cripple fight is v funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 I do believe they cannot compel a dead person to press charges or to appear as a witness, and in a case of sexual molestation they cannot compel the alleged victim to press charges either. ..and logically if you think this through it proves your previous statements incorrect, since prosecutions are pursued on this basis. ---------- Post added 17-02-2014 at 12:44 ---------- Both of you are confused, but the cripple fight is v funny. Not really 999tigger, because Ive said previously it's the CPS who prepare charges and prosecute, not the 'victim' in criminal cases Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 I thought victims were only regarded as witnesses if they have witnessed soemthing and the cwon decides to list them as a witness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emily Moore Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 How do they deal with murder cases? The crown has no need to compel anyone to bring charges because it does so in its own name. Both of you are confused, but the cripple fight is v funny. Not confused at all. The CPS has to prove a crime was committed. In the case of a murder there is a body or at least evidence of a crime. In a sexual molestation case there isn't. Funnily enough it isn't illegal to have sex. So the CPS can find 50 witnesses who watched a sexual act take place, but without the "victim" complaining that it wasn't consensual there was no crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Not confused at all. The CPS has to prove a crime was committed. In the case of a murder there is a body or at least evidence of a crime. In a sexual molestation case there isn't. Funnily enough it isn't illegal to have sex. So the CPS can find 50 witnesses who watched a sexual act take place, but without the "victim" complaining that it wasn't consensual there was no crime. That's dogging on a large scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emily Moore Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 That's dogging on a large scale. I'd call it a hen party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shilling Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 ..and logically if you think this through it proves your previous statements incorrect, since prosecutions are pursued on this basis. ---------- Post added 17-02-2014 at 12:44 ---------- Not really 999tigger, because Ive said previously it's the CPS who prepare charges and prosecute, not the 'victim' in criminal cases It would be a very strange world indeed where a man could be taken to court charged with molesting a woman who hadn't actually filled a complaint. Fortunately it isn't a world that we inhabit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MizsterJones Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 I think we are making the same point, Saville has never had the opportunity to defend himself, his reputation, possibly rightly, is in tatters. None the less the man was a cornerstone of the entertainment industry raised millions for charity. Surely we owe him a full enquiry rather than the 16th century style witch hunt designed to sell newspapers rather than seek the truth. The truth will never be revealed, its impossible seeing as the man is dead,Im sorry but I dont believe the excuses that he was so powerful some accusations were cast on him going back to the late 50's early 60's,at the time he was nothing more than a flamboyant DJ ,he had no power then so if things happened they would have been reported with no fear of a cover up. Youre quite correct the whole shebang is nothing more than a witch hunt and Saville is taking the brunt of it ,how convenient is it that hes dead and cannot speak out,Im not saying by any means that he's completely innocent ,I just question the volume of the accusations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 It would be a very strange world indeed where a man could be taken to court charged with molesting a woman who hadn't actually filled a complaint. Fortunately it isn't a world that we inhabit. I agree, but technically it's a possibility since the complaint can be made by anyone and needs to be investigated. Do you remember the John Terry debacle where the 'victim' of his 'racial abuse' hadn't complained nor did they make a complaint when formally questioned, but a member of the public had. Picture this scenario...a woman viewed by witnesses throughout the evening in a night club, almost unconscious through drink. She's later accosted by a man who had been seen earlier placing something into her glass, who then manhandles her outside where he proceeds to have sex with her down an alley, then leaves the scene and his hapless 'victim' in a heap. The evenings events are documented on CCTV, but the 'victim' has no memory of it and a blood analysis confirms the presence of Rohypnol. He'd been seen the previous week enacting similar methods, but the police have received no complaints about his behaviour. Do you think the man might have a case to answer or should the police pass it off as just an unfortunate passage of events? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.