CPS and recent prosecutions

It's interesting to learn that Nigel Evans chaired and voted yes on the committee that voted to limit legal aid for defendants who were found not guilty.

Funny how he's changed his mind.

Lona good post, I totally agree with you.

That's exactly what he was, and it was a shocking business where he was concerned. Nobody seemed to have heard of 'Innocent until proven guilty'- as far as the media were concerned he was guilty and that was that Todays witch hunts seem to have exactly the same overtones as then and I only hope that we do not have a repeat performance with the same unjustified tragic outcome.

There was something in the newspaper about this recently. Seems Steven Ward was not as culpable as was made out at the time. Bit of a scapegoat.

Ariadne: The Profumo Affair was in 1961. John Profumo (Minister for War in the Macmillan government) had a brief affair with Christine Keeler. The repercussions from this, which involved a Russian Spy (it was at the height of the cold war) were enormous. If you Google it you can find out all about it. I was 18 at the time and it was my first introduction to the way the media, even in those days were able to literally hound someone to their death. Something I found very shocking and still do.

Don't quite understand your last sentence, niggly about the Profumo affair? Probably just me being dim, but could you clarify, please?

But now we all think we know so much about Nigel Evans but we don't really, just what the media tells us, alleged, not proven. I don't know the guy but I think he has had a bad time. OK, he could just about afford £130k for his defence but what about those who cannot?

In the NE case it really does appear that the CPS had very little to go on.

I think that all these sexual allegations have gone far to far. Even JS has not of course been charged and it is becoming evident that a lot of people have jumped on the bandwagon either for their moment of fame or in the hope of a payout. We will never know how much of it is true.

I agree with petallus, but I also think that for a number of members of parliament of all persuasions, it's more a case of 'there but for the grace of God'!! Of course I don't know this, but I have my suspicions!!!

I was impressed with the dignity and good sense of the young men giving evidence against Evans.

They were quoted as saying they were not victims, Evans had made a pass, they hadn't liked it but had dealt with it and got over it. End of!

Like everyone else, I abhor rape and sexual assault but I do think that the CPS are going over the top with all these historic prosecutions. As someone said, almost as though they are trying to make up for their failings in the past and restore their reputation.

If the bars were closed and the behaviour of everyone who works in Westminster was more carefully regulated, this sort of louche behaviour would be curtailed.
As it is, it seems to be a case of "do as I say, not as I do."

I see Nigel Evans now wants an enquiry into prosecution of historical abuse. If this is a cynical attempt to prevent the CPS from pursuing prosecutions he needn't bother. It's already difficult to meet the criteria that convinces the CPS that a prosecution is a) likely to result in conviction, and/or b) in the public interest. He should look at the system as a whole, not just his particular case. As others have said, imagine applying his argument to the Cyril Smith case. The allegations against CS were covered up and police and CPS would have been stifled by instructions from powerful groups. Surely, we don't want that to happen again.

Nigel Evans has demonstrated that he shouldn't be in public office as his behaviour has brought his job into disrepute, by his own admission.

You are right Iam64. Do people seriously expect the CPS to only bring prosecutions if they are certain to win? What sort of justice system would that be?

I agree that the trial was pretty sordid, but it did at least expose some of the ways in which Westminster works. And that's not pleasant.

As for his defence. Well, he chose to employ expensive lawyers and that's what they charge.

The only way round this would be for every person found Not Guilty to have their defence costs paid. That's another matter but we all know cases where defendants have been found not guilty on a point of law. Think of the Stephen Lawrence case. Would you have wanted Norris to have had his defence costs paid?

I agree with you Ana. As I see it the only thing Nigel Evan's is guilty of is getting drunk and behaving badly at 'parties'! Well, lets face it which one of us hasn't?!! I don't think that he has a drink problem as such, and I haven't seen any 'appalling behaviour' but what I do understand is that the CPS hired a top barrister to prosecute him, forcing him to do the same. The fact that he has been landed with an enormous bill to defend accusations that were not true and brought to court on VERY flimsy evidence, seems very wrong to me, and I feel that the CPS should foot this bill. (I know it would be tax payers money) It seems that the CPS is determined to get a conviction from 'someone'! It's as if they need to do this to absolve themselves from the Saville affair, and lets face it that man only got away with appalling behaviour with the connivance of the various authorities! could this have had something to do with the money he raised?!!!! The 'persecution' of other people in the hopes of this conviction is in my opinion disgraceful. The length of time these cases come to court is awful, no one should have to wait month in month out for case to be heard, almost driving that person, with the help of the media, to suicide. Overtones of the Profumo Affair (Stephen Ward) which should in this day and age with modern technology, be a thing of the past

I agree with you totally Iam64, I also think that possibly there should be anonymity until the person is found guilty. There is for the person doing the accusing and even if the person is found not guilty the other person isn't named. And I am not saying they should be but, mud sticks and I think the "stories" are never forgotten, we all know the "no smoke without fire" saying.
I definitely do not think costs should be paid by the CPS as you have said it would set a precedent.

I heard this on the news, and I actually agree that the CPS should at least pay some contribution towards Nigel Evans' costs, (although, of course, that will come out of taxpayers' money as well!).

They seem to be on some sort of cavalier roll at the moment - if there's a cat in hell's chance of a conviction, let's go for it, no matter that the evidence is flimsy at best, or that there isn't really any public appetite for yet another 'headlining' trial.