CPS - damned if they do, and damned if they don't?

I think the deal is that the CPS pursues only those cases where there is a likelihood of successful prosecution. It's a judgement call and sometimes they are wrong.

It also has to be in the public interest to pursue a case.

I wonder why they decided it was not in the public interest to prosecute the two doctors who had offered to abort female foetuses?
I am enjoying Law and Order UK - fictional of course, but I think some of the cases are based on fact.

It will always be extra difficult when the case turns on the credibility of the accuser and the accused.

In the end it's down to the jury. Some people just don't feel able to bring in a guilty verdict. I was on a murder jury where the evidence of guilt was overwhelming but on member just couldn't bring herself to 'take his life away from him' by sending him to prison.

Please don't think I'm against the jury system. I still think it's the best way to go but sometimes the CPS are not only up again the defence but also the jury.

Greatnan I think wrt the Abortion Law, abortion is legal if it is done because to carry on with the pregnancy would damage the woman's physical or mental health.
It would be very difficult for a prosecuting barrister to prove that a woman's mental health would not be impaired by continuing a pregnancy.
Don't think I am condoning abortions carried because the baby is the wrong sex - I'm not. I'm just commenting on the law as it stands.

vampire I would have thought that the person who wasn't willing to find someone guilty despite overwhelming evidence should have asked to be exempted at the beginning of the process. I'm sure there is a mechanism for doing this - perhaps someone else on GN knows?

Was the accused found guilty on a majority verdict?

Potential jurors are asked at the beginning if they have a bias either way, or have read extensively about the case they would be observing, but once they are in the room deciding guilty or not, it's too late. There have been rare cases of a retrial because of inappropriate behaviour of jurors, but where one or two are adamant about a verdict in opposition to the rest of the jury, they go back to explain and the judge will decide if a 10/2 or 11/1 majority verdict will be accepted.

A majority verdict was accepted.

This is a good question - once the evidence started to be reported, it seemed pretty clear in the recent case, that a not guilty finding was inevitable. I have been led to understand (lawyers and police officer info) that the CPS only prosecute child sexual abuse cases if it's in the public interest and they're over 85% certain of a conviction. I feel that the whole area of the abuse of children to so abhorrent to the majority of people, that it's often almost easier to dismiss individuals/children who complain they have been abused as being fantasists. There is no doubt that a small number of false allegations are made, but so far as I know, most of the allegations made are believed by the professionals involved. It seems that the cps in Manchester decided not to prosecute, because they recognised the lack of independent/forensic evidence would make a conviction difficult. This decision was over ruled later.
Maybe I should comment on this on a new thread - the Sun headlines yesterday focussed on discrediting the mother of the 17 year old involved in the recent case. (I read this on the new stand folks, not in Real Life). The media prior to the case was full of large photographs of the accused, with comments about how he planned to prove his innocence. Now the same papers are attacking the mother of the child, presumably they will move on to direct attacks on the girl who made the allegations. No doubt, they will rage about bullying in another article, no reflection there then.

We all know that the care system attracts many very dedicated people, but also that it has attracted some very different types. If children were kept in the system close to their own home, so relatives could visit more often, there would possibly be more chance of abuse being reported. It sometimes seems that the people making decisions about placements are more concerned with saving money than considering the long term welfare of the children, many of whom are placed far from their home. Their relatives may be too poor to pay travel costs so the child is increasingly isolated.
The outcomes of the care system are very poor, with many young people leaving and going straight into prostitution ,drug dealing, prison, or homelessness. It could be argued that they were already damaged when they were placed in care, but surely it would not be beyond the wit of somebody to devise a better after-care support system. It must be heart-breaking for social workers who try their hardest to be stymied by the lack of funds.

We all know that the care system attracts many very dedicated people, but also that it has attracted some very different types. If children were kept in the system close to their own home, so relatives could visit more often, there would possibly be more chance of abuse being reported. It sometimes seems that the people making decisions about placements are more concerned with saving money than considering the long term welfare of the children, many of whom are placed far from their home. Their relatives may be too poor to pay travel costs so the child is increasingly isolated.
The outcomes of the care system are very poor, with many young people leaving and going straight into prostitution ,drug dealing, prison, or homelessness. It could be argued that they were already damaged when they were placed in care, but surely it would not be beyond the wit of somebody to devise a better after-care support system. It must be heart-breaking for social workers who try their hardest to be stymied by the lack of funds.

Iam64 I agree. It would be nice if matters such as this were reported in a balanced way and not sensationalised by the press. Instead we get the tabloids leaping from one "target" to another without any thought for the damage caused to the individuals or organisations concerned. Unfortunately these papers sell well so I suppose it says a lot about the British public's appetite for this sort of rabble rousing material.

So frustrating for social workers who place chidren away from their communities to break a cycle of abuse, then discover they have been groomed or exploited by others anyway. Fortunately, most placements are at least good enough and frequently excellent.

My sister has fostered over 30 children in the last 20 years, and has kept contact, directly or via their parents and carers, with every one of them. One stayed for good until she went to university, and now lives close by and is regarded as a family member. Some of their stories woud break your heart, and it's the commitment and love they have received from social workers and foster family that has enabled them all to live safely and happily. These children won't be subjected to scrutiny and publicity about the damage done to children in care, nor will thousands of others whom the care system has nurtured and protected.

As Greatnan says, it's aftercare for children who haven't had the benefit of new parents or foster carers who remain supportive. They need to be quite mature to cope with moving into a shared house or hostel and manage a budget for themselves, let alone dealing with everything life throws at them in terms of jobs, relationships and a safe social life.

I once befriended a child who lived in the local home. She used to come for tea and she attended a school where I was dinner lady.

Sometimes she smelled of urine. I don't think they were all that kind where she lived.

She would be getting on for 50 years old now. She had a beautiful fierce nature and I often think of her.

The move to private, rather than local authority, residential care reduced the availability of placements for children/teenagers for whom foster care was either inappropriate or unavailable. My experience is that most la's try hard to keep children near to their family of origin, to significant people in their lives. Communication between private agencies and l.a. social workers can be problematic. Specialist placements can cost £2000 and more a week. One of the problems is that private residential homes find it cheaper to buy large properties to convert, in areas of deprivation, or in more remote country areas.
Greatnan - the la has a duty to promote contact between 'looked after' children and their family/significant others. I had one little boy placed 100 miles away from home. His complex needs meant a specialist placement was required. His placement had only 5 children, a very high staff ratio, education and therapy on site. I visited him 4 weeks into placement, his progress was a joy to see. In the build up to his placement, He'd been cruel to animals, couldn't sit still for more than a minute or so, and was so tense, he looked menacing. He was 6. He loved his placement and didn't want to go home. The la initially transported his parents and sibs to visit him, then provided train fares, food money etc for weekly visits.
I acknowledge not all l.a.'s meet the needs of children in their care appropriately. These are the most vulnerable children in the country when first known to social workers, and remain vulnerable. I won't mention the impact of the cuts........

There was an item on Breakfast this morning about the problem of placements and it was said that one social worker had to travel two hundred miles to stay in contact with one child

Apparently, Lancashire has 89 care homes for children and takes many from outside the area.

I found this site interesting:

www.thewhocarestrust.org.uk/pages/moving-on-dealing-with-multiple-placements.html

I think some of the problem is that the cost of accommodation in cities such as London is so high and councils are trying to cut costs, especially now that they receive less money from government.

Of course it shouldn't happen but I find it a bit rich of the government to be so critical when at least part of the reason for accommodating young people in other areas (and often deprived areas) is because government funds have been slashed.