Guilty - even when innocent!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ah so you don't believe anyone can be reformed then is that it?
It is a question of risk management (as I believe has already been mentioned). When you are employing someone to work with vulnerable people, you cannot know that the prospective employee will never harm the vulnerable person in their charge (nor that they will), but you can look at as much information as is available so that you can reduce that risk.
 
This thread has illustrated while in England and Wales (and ignoring the cases where juries cannot reach a decision) a defendant at the end of the court case is, in the eyes of the law, innocent or guilty, but life is more complicated.

We don't know (and almost certainly we will never know) how the not guilty verdict occurred

Did the case go to completion and the jury retire to consider their verdict?
Did the judge direct the jury to return a not guilty verdict?
Did the CPS, who I assume believed there was a good chance of a guilty verdict, withdraw from the case at some point (not entirely sure this would result in a not guilty verdict)?
Did some new compelling evidence come to light during the case that resulted in the not guilty verdict?

However, it clear from this comment by one of the judges in the appeal that there are some concerns about what has happened -

Lord Carnwath added: "We have been shown reports which emphasise the importance of not excluding the convicted from consideration for employment, but they say nothing about the acquitted, who surely deserve greater protection from unfair stigmatisation."

Dave
 
Points system

Guilty = 3
Not Guilty = 2
Charged but not to trial (charges dropped) = 1
Arrested but never charged = 0
 
Ah so you don't believe anyone can be reformed then is that it?
Some people do reform, completely.
I knew a guy who, in his youth, attacked and badly beat up an asian taxi driver simply because another asian taxi driver had beaten up one of his mates, he was sent to prison and became a totally reformed character, and an active anti-racist. But reformation is fairly rare, most people tend to behave in the future as they have behaved in the past.
The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act allows for convictions to be 'spent' after a period of time, this allows people to get insurance without having to pay extra, and to get a job, but it is limited in that there is no rehabilitation for offences that result in a prison sentence of four years or more, and some jobs (including jobs in the police, prison service, legal profession, health, care of vulnerable adults and children etc are exempt, and so they should be.
It is a question of risk management (as I believe has already been mentioned). When you are employing someone to work with vulnerable people, you cannot know that the prospective employee will never harm the vulnerable person in their charge (nor that they will), but you can look at as much information as is available so that you can reduce that risk.
And even poor risk management is much better than no risk management at all.
 
This thread has illustrated while in England and Wales (and ignoring the cases where juries cannot reach a decision) a defendant at the end of the court case is, in the eyes of the law, innocent or guilty, but life is more complicated.

We don't know (and almost certainly we will never know) how the not guilty verdict occurred

Did the case go to completion and the jury retire to consider their verdict?
Did the judge direct the jury to return a not guilty verdict?
Did the CPS, who I assume believed there was a good chance of a guilty verdict, withdraw from the case at some point (not entirely sure this would result in a not guilty verdict)?
Did some new compelling evidence come to light during the case that resulted in the not guilty verdict?

However, it clear from this comment by one of the judges in the appeal that there are some concerns about what has happened -

Lord Carnwath added: "We have been shown reports which emphasise the importance of not excluding the convicted from consideration for employment, but they say nothing about the acquitted, who surely deserve greater protection from unfair stigmatisation."

Dave

Im not sure what point you are making here with the quote from Lord Carnwath. You seem to be saying that theres evidence to say theres good reason to keep the information on his dbs check when in fact the quote doesnt say that at all?
 
Points system

Guilty = 3
Not Guilty = 2
Charged but not to trial (charges dropped) = 1
Arrested but never charged = 0

Is this something that exists or have you plucked it out of thin air? I dont know what point you are trying to make here?
 
Some people do reform, completely.
I knew a guy who, in his youth, attacked and badly beat up an asian taxi driver simply because another asian taxi driver had beaten up one of his mates, he was sent to prison and became a totally reformed character, and an active anti-racist. But reformation is fairly rare, most people tend to behave in the future as they have behaved in the past.
The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act allows for convictions to be 'spent' after a period of time, this allows people to get insurance without having to pay extra, and to get a job, but it is limited in that there is no rehabilitation for offences that result in a prison sentence of four years or more, and some jobs (including jobs in the police, prison service, legal profession, health, care of vulnerable adults and children etc are exempt, and so they should be.

Thats a massive generalisation that the figures simply don't support. The latest reoffending rates published on gov.uk are an overall reoffending rate of 29.5%. Im not saying that's great but its not supportive of rare

And even poor risk management is much better than no risk management at all.

Ouch. really? The problem with poor risk management is that its poor, ie not done right if at all and becomes a tick box excercise at best therefore risks are essentially ignored.
 
Is this something that exists or have you plucked it out of thin air? I dont know what point you are trying to make here?

trying to fill in the grey area with a reality check, subtle differences which can be mapped
 
I'm going to make an assumption that we all know how risk assessment work.
But, for those that don't the basics are you have a risk/hazard that is made up of a couple of scores, the likelyhood of the risk happening and the consequence of that risk happening. These scores are multiplied together and then the result falls into a low-medium-high category.
Control measures are put into place and the resulting risk is then re-assessed.
For instance, take the risk in working at the top of a tall tree in the rain.
The likelyhood of falling would be high, say 4 out of 5, the result of the fall would be death, maximum score of 5, multiplied =20
Result high risk.

Put control measures in place, do not work in the rain, always were a harness, always work in pairs with one person in charge of the rope, we're protective clothing, all personnel to be correctly trained etc etc the likelyhood of a fall is now 2 and the outcome is down to 3, a broken bone from falling a few feet with the harnest etc.

The first scenario is high risk and no right minded person would allow it, the second is still a risk but greatly reduced and workable.

Now, assess the risk in th op case, that of the school not the appeal for privacy, and see objectively if you think all the information should be available.
 
Thats a massive generalisation that the figures simply don't support. The latest reoffending rates published on gov.uk are an overall reoffending rate of 29.5%. Im not saying that's great but its not supportive of rare



Ouch. really? The problem with poor risk management is that its poor, ie not done right if at all and becomes a tick box excercise at best therefore risks are essentially ignored.
"reoffending rate" actually means reconviction rate. These two figures would only be the same if all offenders were caught, and if the CPS then agreed to all of them being charged, and if they all then went to Court and either pleaded guilty or were convicted. As only a small minority of offenders of most crimes are caught, and then charged, and then convicted, the true "reoffending rate" must be far, far higher than the official figures, that's obvious.
 
Well it's obvious certainly if you make assumptions yes.
So, your own assumption is that
1. All crimes are reported to the police
2. The police investigate all crimes reported to them
3. They arrest the guilty person, every time
4. The CPS decide that the police will charge, in every case
5. The person charged will actually turn up at Court
6. s/he will then either plead guilty or will be found guilty.

I, and others, have tried to educate you on the realities of life in the real world, but I've now given up - some battles just can't be won.
 
Im not sure what point you are making here with the quote from Lord Carnwath. You seem to be saying that theres evidence to say theres good reason to keep the information on his dbs check when in fact the quote doesnt say that at all?


I think Lord Carnwath's comment indicates that consideration should be given to a convicted person who has served their sentence and then seeks employment but there appears to be no guidance to assist employers if someone found not guilty of an offence, and therefore is, in the eyes of the law innocent, applies for a job.

I'm not sure if I think a record of the offence should be included in the ECRC. I can see a reason for not including - the jury found him not guilty, but I can also see why a Chief Police Officer might decide it was relevant.

It depends on the circumstances of the court case. I think a not guilty verdict after the jury has listened to all the evidence but decides the prosecution has not, beyond reasonable doubt, proved the person to be guilty, is different to a not guilty verdict based on new evidence that came to light during the trial which proves the defendant could not have committed the crime.However, both will be recorded as not guilty, but should both be recorded on the ECRC?

Which goes back to an earlier post on this thread about a need for some discussion (which would have to include the public) and official guidance in such cases.

Dave
 
So, your own assumption is that
1. All crimes are reported to the police

No, I'm simply quoting actual data, not making assumptions based on emotion.

2. The police investigate all crimes reported to them

No clue, Im not a policeman and never claimed that they do or do not.

3. They arrest the guilty person, every time

I don't know why you're saying this, did I ever say that? Don't think so.

4. The CPS decide that the police will charge, in every case

Again, I never said this and I don't work for the CPS.

5. The person charged will actually turn up at Court

Again, I never said this.

6. s/he will then either plead guilty or will be found guilty.

Think I should just cut and paste.

I, and others, have tried to educate you on the realities of life in the real world, but I've now given up - some battles just can't be won.

I'm aware of the realities of the real world, ie the injustice of the system and the fact you and others find it acceptable that some innocents should be punished for "the greater good" , not only that but those that hold that view are quite happy to accept a flawed system.

I mean, your above 6 points are an attempt to distract from the fact that you made a sweeping generalisation based on personal feelings about the rarity of offenders reforming. Not a single one of them supports this.
 
I think Lord Carnwath's comment indicates that consideration should be given to a convicted person who has served their sentence and then seeks employment but there appears to be no guidance to assist employers if someone found not guilty of an offence, and therefore is, in the eyes of the law innocent, applies for a job.

I'm not sure if I think a record of the offence should be included in the ECRC. I can see a reason for not including - the jury found him not guilty, but I can also see why a Chief Police Officer might decide it was relevant.

It depends on the circumstances of the court case. I think a not guilty verdict after the jury has listened to all the evidence but decides the prosecution has not, beyond reasonable doubt, proved the person to be guilty, is different to a not guilty verdict based on new evidence that came to light during the trial which proves the defendant could not have committed the crime.However, both will be recorded as not guilty, but should both be recorded on the ECRC?

Which goes back to an earlier post on this thread about a need for some discussion (which would have to include the public) and official guidance in such cases.

Dave

Ah ok, that's clear to me now :)
 
ok so what about a convicted killer who served a life sentence 20 years ago and is no a reformed practising bishop?

would you trust him to look after your kids?

Simply put .... No..
 
ok so what about a convicted killer who served a life sentence 20 years ago and is no a reformed practising bishop?

would you trust him to look after your kids?

So basically we should either:

a) Kill all offenders, they wont do it again, our kids will be safe?
b) Make it really difficult for them to get jobs and never allow them to be like you or I, basically scrap any form of rehabilitation?

Hmmm, let me think... many offenders want to live a normal life and are remorseful of past crimes and want to now live a positive life. If we continue to persecute them or make life awkward guess what, they will resort to crime!! And/or have a grudge against society and then commit more bad acts.

If anything, maybe reformed offenders are better to work with kids than most of us. They have been there, done that and can relate to them better. They would probably have more respect. If I told a kid not to do drugs in my nice middle class life, or someone who has been homeless, done time and has been drug free for 10 years who do you think would be better?
 
ok so what about a convicted killer who served a life sentence 20 years ago and is no a reformed practising bishop?

would you trust him to look after your kids?

Despite the fact that most sexual assaults are by people who know the victims... I hope people don't leave their kids with brothers, uncles or grandads!!! Can't believe my brother in law left his girls with me the other week!!!
 
According to the home office someone is charged or summoned in only 9% of crimes in England and Wales. In rape cases it’s only 3%.

The reality is today, if you’re charged and taken to court for rape, while the old tenet of innocent until proven guilty stands, it’s also true that some form of corroborating evidence must exist for you to be in the 3%.

That does not make you guilty and you can be aquitted of course but it’s easy to see how the ‘no smoke without fire’ argument is more prevalent today than perhaps a century or two ago.

The police and the CPS can and do get it horribly wrong. The enhanced DBS process is there just to allow employers to take an informed view of the risks - it is not a pass / fail test. They can ask questions of you and you can respond.
 
The reality is today, if you’re charged and taken to court for rape, while the old tenet of innocent until proven guilty stands, it’s also true that some form of corroborating evidence must exist for you to be in the 3%.

.

Or, as in several high profile cases this year alone, the police have simply ignored / witheld compelling evidence which would have resulted in the CPS not pursuing charges at all.
 
Or, as in several high profile cases this year alone, the police have simply ignored / witheld compelling evidence which would have resulted in the CPS not pursuing charges at all.
Didn't the investigation into the circumstances show that whilst really unfortunate for those concerned, it was a lack of compliance with procedures by individuals that created those cases, and no further instances were discovered?
 
Didn't the investigation into the circumstances show that whilst really unfortunate for those concerned, it was a lack of compliance with procedures by individuals that created those cases, and no further instances were discovered?

As I understand it, police were failing to include all digital evidence (mostly texts) into evidence, and when defence finally obtained it on discovery, trials were halted and convictions overturned (5 in 4 weeks at one point).
Back in January this resulted in the CPS reviewing ALL (then) current rape and sexual assault cases, and quite a few cases being summarily dismissed.
 
As I understand it, police were failing to include all digital evidence (mostly texts) into evidence, and when defence finally obtained it on discovery, trials were halted and convictions overturned (5 in 4 weeks at one point).
Back in January this resulted in the CPS reviewing ALL (then) current rape and sexual assault cases, and quite a few cases being summarily dismissed.
Yes, that's pretty well it. In some cases, the texts proved a relationship that the accused had claimed to exist but that the "victim" had claimed not to exist, and in other cases there were texts from the "victim" sent AFTER the alleged rape that indicated that she had fully consented to what had occurred.

Witholding this vital evidence is disgraceful of course, and brings both the police and the CPS into disrepute, regardless of whether it was deliberate or due to inefficiencies, withholding evidence can and does lead to miscarriages of justice. Personally I'm not surprised, because in my own experience the police seem to lose a lot of paperwork, but strangely only the paperwork that helps their case when it gets lost. The worst thing about it is that these losses are so common that judges tend to just accept it as something that happens, and don't seem to penalise them for it.
 
these losses are so common that judges tend to just accept it as something that happens,
As summarised in the old Joke.
Judge to Prosecution counsel "where is this evidence you speak of?"
Counsel "The police have Faxed it up"
Judge "No surprise there "
 
My final words on this are simply I wouldn't want anyone who had been accused and tried for rape walking my dog let alone working with children and I also doubt if anyone here would be honest enough to say otherwise.
For me an accusation that leads to trial is a serious thing.
An accusation that leads to no charges being bought is different.

Think again.

Stepen Kiszko 100% innocent. 16 yrs in prison he stood trial .

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...s-jury-finds-man-guilty-of-murder-400089.html

Colin Stagg set up by the police for murder 100% innocent he stood trial.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...s-jury-finds-man-guilty-of-murder-400089.html

And the list goes on.
 
But surely you are capable of using the facts of that case, and comparing them to the case that is in the OP?
I don’t believe you’re too stupid to see a dangerous parallel, so are you just being wilfully obtuse in order to press a point that’s definitely dangerous at best.

As Garry says, the DBS system is far from perfect, but are you suggesting that scrapping it would be safer?

Or do you have anything positive to add?

But back to the question, would you be happy with a suspected (and definitely guilt but not convicted) child killer looking after your kids?

You are asking hypothetical questions that are nothing to do with the issue of "should a person who has been proved by a court to be not guilty of any offence have a record of that court appearance".

And Phil how on earth do you come up with "definitely guilty but not convicted" what the ... is that!
 
Before we had these safeguarding systems in place, we relied on local knowledge, which sort of worked in the case of Bishop because just about everyone in Brighton, where he lived, knew all about him - but there was nothing to stop him stealing a car and going somewhere else...

I think that we need to stop worrying too much about occasional injustices to those who are entirely innocent, and think instead about society's obligation to protect the public in general.
If DBS information makes it difficult for them to get a job in England or Wales that places them in a position to abuse vulnerable people then they can work elsewhere, or they can work in a similar field but where they do not have unsupervised access to vulnerable people.
I'm old, I hope that I don't live long enough to need professional care, but if I do then I don't want someone who has been tried for rape carrying out the care, and I don't want that person taking care of, or educating my grandchildren either. Someone who has been questioned by police is very different, this could happen to anyone, but for a case to actually go to trial means that there was a lot of evidence indicating guilt - maybe not enough to actually convict, but a lot none the less.

Look at what has gone on in the past, in all sorts or organisations but mainly in children's homes, orphanages etc, usually run by local authorities or even worse, by the churches - no legislation can possibly prevent all forms of abuse or other crime, but do we really want to go back to the bad old days of having no checks at all, and no safeguarding systems in place?

For people who have been found quilty of course.
 
You are asking hypothetical questions that are nothing to do with the issue of "should a person who has been proved by a court to be not guilty of any offence have a record of that court appearance".

And Phil how on earth do you come up with "definitely guilty but not convicted" what the ... is that!
Well he went on to murder a further child and is to be retried for the original offence he was not convicted of.

It’s really quite simple ;)

How comes this scenario is always obvious in the other direction: :thinking:

Why don’t we support the death penalty? Because courts can make mistakes! (It seems obvious that courts can mistakenly convict the innocent)

Is it possible that someone has committed a crime but not been convicted? You can’t go accusing people who are ‘innocent’! That’s just pandering to ‘no smoke without fire’. It’s ludicrous to suggest that a court will find an innocent person guilty. Not to mention the number of ‘guilty’ people who’ve never even been charged, let alone tried in court.
 
Last edited:
Ah so you don't believe anyone can be reformed then is that it?
Your being drawn off track (good job I stepped in ;)) Reformation is not the issue. Keep to the point is about those who have stood trial and been tested in court as to their guilt and then in fact been found not guilty.

After that when they apply for a job should they be subject to disclosure of that trial to a prospective employer at which they found not guilty.

What has to be kept in mind (read the judgment) is that the person who decides on whether or not to make the disclosure is the chief constable, the police the very same people who prosecuted and lost the case. Now is that a wise decision

I think that it should be an independant body that decides if the information should be disclosed not in every case such as convicted people. But the police should have no place in disclosing cases to employers or anyone where they lost the case. The police are left open to suggetions of revenge.

Judgement. https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0144-press-summary.pdf
 
Your being drawn off track (good job I stepped in ;)) Reformation is not the issue. Keep to the point is about those who have stood trial and been tested in court as to their guilt and then in fact been found not guilty.

After that when they apply for a job should they be subject to disclosure of that trial to a prospective employer at which they found not guilty.

What has to be kept in mind (read the judgment) is that the person who decides on whether or not to make the disclosure is the chief constable, the police the very same people who prosecuted and lost the case. Now is that a wise decision

I think that it should be an independant body that decides if the information should be disclosed not in every case such as convicted people. But the police should have no place in disclosing cases to employers or anyone where they lost the case. The police are left open to suggetions of revenge.

Judgement. https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0144-press-summary.pdf
Undoubtably a few police officers are corrupt, more are incompetent and even more are self-serving, and generally the higher up they reach in rank, the worse it gets. BUT they are also the people who are best placed to form a sound opinion on whether or not information about their suspicions about an individual should be available to others.
 
Undoubtably a few police officers are corrupt, more are incompetent and even more are self-serving, and generally the higher up they reach in rank, the worse it gets. BUT they are also the people who are best placed to form a sound opinion on whether or not information about their suspicions about an individual should be available to others.

So the corrupt, incompetent and self serving are included as the best people to form this sound opinion? Really.??
 
So the corrupt, incompetent and self serving are included as the best people to form this sound opinion? Really.??
Yes, it's the way that the world works, I'm sorry if you don't understand that.
We have politicians who are caught lying in their teeth, others have made themselves incredibly rich by taking decisions that suit their own business interests, but they are still the people best placed to make decisions on our behalf.
We have so-called independent experts that adjudicate on technical issues such as planning appeals, they are strongly biased because they have a planning authority background, but they are still the best people to understand planning issues.
We have judges who seem to live on a different planet and who know nothing about ordinary people, but they still form the backbone of the best criminal justice system in the world.

Whenever an independent body is set up to make decisions, it always either rubber-stamps the views of the experts, or totally rejects them. They never seem to form consistent, balanced views.
 
I understand it, Im just not someone thats willing to blindly accept it as you seem to be.

I think that’s the nuance that’s missed in this thread, it appears that there’s a huge chasm between those that accept this decision and those that don’t. As if some of us are prepared to accept anything the authorities dump on us, and others are the only ones who question authority.

It’s a nonsense, I’d guess none of us are completely happy with the status quo, but some of us believe this situation is a ‘storm in a teacup’ and others are trying to pretend it’s the biggest travesty of justice since the Birmingham 6.
 
What I believe is that while it may be a storm in a teacup to some, it certainly isn't to anyone thats found themselves in the situation the OP's post is about, and there is the potential that this could happen to anyone for any reason.
Im not trying to pretend anything, I don't believe that its the biggest travesty of justice since the birmingham 6 either and frankly it's a bit condescending to resort to such statements.
 
What I believe is that while it may be a storm in a teacup to some, it certainly isn't to anyone thats found themselves in the situation the OP's post is about, and there is the potential that this could happen to anyone for any reason.
Im not trying to pretend anything, I don't believe that its the biggest travesty of justice since the birmingham 6 either and frankly it's a bit condescending to resort to such statements.
From what little we know, the accused in this case was working as a taxi driver. A female passenger complained that he had raped her. He said that not only did he not rape her, he had had no physical contact whatever with her.
So, assuming that he spoke the truth, there would be no forensic evidence to the contrary.
And yet, the police believed the woman. Why?
Guessing again, it's reasonable to assume that they had some evidence (we know that there must have been enough, in the opinion of the CPS, otherwise the man would not have been charged). It's also possible that this was not the first complaint against this man, again we don't know, but the police must have had some reason to believe that he was, or may be guilty, and as people typically behave in the future as they have behaved in the past, it's fairly likely that the police had some reason to believe that he was a likely candidate for rape.
The CPS then examined all of the evidence that the police had, they came to the same conclusion as the police and, more crucially, believed (wrongly as it happened) that he would be convicted.
None of these beliefs make the person guilty, but their existence does demonstrate that there was at least some evidence of his guilt, because without this evidence he would not have been charged.

Therefore, I don't believe that it is unfair or disproportionate to refer to his aquittal on his DBS record. If he is entirely innocent, then he may not be able to work unsupervised with children, which would be unfair to him, if he is guilty then that reference may stop a child from being raped. Is it really more important to make sure that he can do exactly the job that he would like to do, or is it more important to protect children from rapists?
 
What I believe is that while it may be a storm in a teacup to some, it certainly isn't to anyone thats found themselves in the situation the OP's post is about, and there is the potential that this could happen to anyone for any reason.
Let's try to keep things in context:
How many children would you think have been put at risk this year because of a clear DBS check?
What's an acceptable number to you?

Im not trying to pretend anything, I don't believe that its the biggest travesty of justice since the birmingham 6 either and frankly it's a bit condescending to resort to such statements.
Like I said, my post was supposed to show that there's more common ground here than difference :tumbleweed:; yet you seem intent on creating a drama. :bat:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top