Earlier
this week head teacher James Bird was cleared of a historic allegation of
sexual abuse. The jury took all of 15 minutes to clear him. There are obvious questions to be asked and
the ramifications that will follow will be a matter for legal debate at the
highest level no doubt. What I find particularly interesting is the comment
from CPS quoted in the Times when a spokesman said it was important to
distinguish between evidence a person had lied about allegations and a jury
deciding evidence was not strong enough for a conviction. Surely with remarks of that nature this is an
argument for considering the Scottish verdict; not proven?
only if every complaint / charge against public officials is logged a unproven and not swept under the carpet. it may go some way in preventing the police from murdering any more unarmed law abiding citizens or psudo civil servants raping pregnant women
ReplyDeleteI've always regarded "Not Proven" as meaning "we think the defendant is guilty, but the evidence is insufficient for a conviction"
ReplyDeleteAnd that is exactly why we shouldn't even think about incorporating it into English law. A "bastard verdict" as Sir Walter Scott aptly called it.
ReplyDelete