Michael Le Vell cleared of child rape

v638sg7k1a92bx

Apologies if I am breaching any forum rules but the verdict has been announced so I hope we can discuss the case. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/coronation-street-actor-le-vell-cleared-of-child-rape-1.1522351

Can anyone explain how these cases are actually making it to trial. On what basis does the DPP bring charges, is it effectively not one persons word against the other. Particularly in this trial, what was the evidence put forward by the prosecution other than the victims testimony?

godtabh

Are you suggesting that the case should't have went to trial? How would you then determine if the defendant was guilty or not?

I assume the the CPS made a judgment call on evidence available. That doesn't guarantee a conviction as there is two sides to every story

frag420

about fooking time, he has had my car in the garage for months!!

lowly26

i was just wondering about the fact that the victim cannot be named for legal reasons. does the law that prevents media etc from identifing the victim still stand weather the accused is found guilty or not?as in now that micheal le veil has been found innocent is she still considered a victim of sexual abuse?

i was reading an online newspaper article about the fact he was found innocent and a lot of the comments underneath were calling for the girl to be "named and shamed". i was interested to know that if he is now considered innocent , is she still considered a victim? and following that if she is not still considered a victim , is she still covered by the law against revealing her identity ?

* i'm not advocating the "name and shame" point of view or not , i was just interest in the legal stance is on it when any accused is found not giulty in these cases

v638sg7k1a92bx

godtabh wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the case should't have went to trial? How would you then determine if the defendant was guilty or not?

I assume the the CPS made a judgment call on evidence available. That doesn't guarantee a conviction as there is two sides to every story

Why is your prima facie reaction that I'm suggesting the case should not have gone to trial? Similar to @lowly26 I'm simply curious as to how the CPS thought they could secure a conviction when the evidence that was put forward appeared to be uncorroborated and unsubstantiated i.e. one persons word against another?

Does anyone know what the prosecutions evidence was apart from the alleged victims testimony?

Gatling

lowly26 wrote: »

i was just wondering about the fact that the victim cannot be named for legal reasons. does the law that prevents media etc from identifing the victim still stand weather the accused is found guilty or not?as in now that micheal le veil has been found innocent is she still considered a victim of sexual abuse?

i was reading an online newspaper article about the fact he was found innocent and a lot of the comments underneath were calling for the girl to be "named and shamed". i was interested to know that if he is now considered innocent , is she still considered a victim? and following that if she is not still considered a victim , is she still covered by the law against revealing her identity ?

* i'm not advocating the "name and shame" point of view or not , i was just interest in the legal stance is on it when any accused is found not giulty in these cases

Under uk law the alleged victims of sexual assault even when found to be making it up maintain anonymity for life according to various news outlets

coylemj

Yisroel Rhythmic Accelerator wrote: »

..... I'm simply curious as to how the CPS thought they could secure a conviction when the evidence that was put forward appeared to be uncorroborated and unsubstantiated i.e. one persons word against another?

That's a difficult one for the CPS, they have to weigh up the probability of getting a conviction which depends on how the accuser will stand up to cross examination, is her story consistent & what kind of defence will the accused put up? A lot of the variables can't be accurately predicted in advance, including what type of jury will hear the case.

So while he was found not guilty, that in itself doesn't mean they shouldn't have prosecuted him in the first place.

Yisroel Rhythmic Accelerator wrote: »

Does anyone know what the prosecutions evidence was apart from the alleged victims testimony?

I don't think there was any physical or corroborative evidence as the events happened a long time before the accuser reported the matter to the police so there was no evidence trail.

not guilty doesnt automatically = innocent.
just saying.

the injured party should NOT be 'named and shamed' unless it is shown that they made up the allegation and lied all the way through.

id hazard a guess that the CPS are terrified of not bringing these cases to court after the whole Jimmy Saville incident

lowly26

bubblypop wrote: »

not guilty doesnt automatically = innocent.
just saying.

the injured party should NOT be 'named and shamed' unless it is shown that they made up the allegation and lied all the way through.

id hazard a guess that the CPS are terrified of not bringing these cases to court after the whole Jimmy Saville incident

iwasnt saying that she should be named and shamed, i was saying i read other peoples comments on it and i was interested to know were the law stood on this situation and indeed cases that have a similar outcome nothing more. i was not advocating either side as i dont know enough about the case .

lowly26

Gatling wrote: »

Under uk law the alleged victims of sexual assault even when found to be making it up maintain anonymity for life according to various news outlets

thanks thats answered it for me

Pro Hoc Vice

Yisroel Rhythmic Accelerator wrote: »

Why is your prima facie reaction that I'm suggesting the case should not have gone to trial? Similar to @lowly26 I'm simply curious as to how the CPS thought they could secure a conviction when the evidence that was put forward appeared to be uncorroborated and unsubstantiated i.e. one persons word against another?

Does anyone know what the prosecutions evidence was apart from the alleged victims testimony?

A large number of sexual assault and rape cases are based on only the evidence of the complainant. That is evidence, there may in certain circumstances be the evidence of the person they first complained to. There in many cases is no physical evidence and if there is it may not prove that consent was or was not given.

It is the job of the judge or the jury to weigh up the evidence of the complainant and decide. In the UK post Saville the CPS is prosecuting far more cases that may have been borderline.

johnnyskeleton

lowly26 wrote: »

i was just wondering about the fact that the victim cannot be named for legal reasons. does the law that prevents media etc from identifing the victim still stand weather the accused is found guilty or not?as in now that micheal le veil has been found innocent is she still considered a victim of sexual abuse?

i was reading an online newspaper article about the fact he was found innocent and a lot of the comments underneath were calling for the girl to be "named and shamed". i was interested to know that if he is now considered innocent , is she still considered a victim? and following that if she is not still considered a victim , is she still covered by the law against revealing her identity ?

* i'm not advocating the "name and shame" point of view or not , i was just interest in the legal stance is on it when any accused is found not giulty in these cases

Yes, unless it is found that she made a deliberately false statement, she is still entitled to anonymity. A person is not a victim in a criminal trial - they are a complainant. However, for the purposes of civil claims, statistics and such she can be considered a victim.

He was not found "innocent", he was found "not guilty". That isn't a finding that he definitely didn't do it, or that he probably didn't do it, just that there is a reasonable probability that he didn't do it and so in our system of justice he is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

Bepolite

bubblypop wrote: »

not guilty doesnt automatically = innocent.
just saying.

the injured party should NOT be 'named and shamed' unless it is shown that they made up the allegation and lied all the way through.

id hazard a guess that the CPS are terrified of not bringing these cases to court after the whole Jimmy Saville incident

I have to take issue with this - not guilty does indeed mean the party is innocent. I think I know what you mean but I did feel a compuslision to point out the presumetion of innocence. This guy's life has been irrepairaly damaged.

That's not to say I disagree with the rest of your post. If for no other reason victims (actual or not) should not be named on public policy grounds.

Santa Cruz

Coronation Street.

Spoiler alert!

Tyrone has taken over t'garage and won't let Kevin back.
Kevin opens crèche and first customers are Amy Barlow and little Max

alyssum

Santa Cruz wrote: »

Coronation Street.

Spoiler alert!

Tyrone has taken over t'garage and won't let Kevin back.
Kevin opens crèche and first customers are Amy Barlow and little Max

manager ken barlow

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

not guilty doesnt automatically = innocent.
just saying.

Actually that's precisely what it means.

Innocent until proven guilty. Not proven guilty therefore innocent.

The corollary of your point above is: accused doesn't automatically = guilty.

We don't know what happened so we had a process to test the evidence of all parties and a jury of Mr. Turner's peers determined that he was not guilty based on the criminal standard of proof.

That means he is innocent of the alleged crime.

Cody Pomeray

I think what people who are dis-satisfied with a soap star not being a pedophile are doing is pretty pathetic.

It doesn't matter to them that our societies determine a man's guilt or innocence using well established tests and methods, 'they' know better, and seek to use their personal, one-man definitions of innocence in crucifying their favourite 'celebs'.

These attitudes, which can be extended to anyone who comes into the public eye, are what make false allegations so particularly vindictive.

v638sg7k1a92bx

coylemj wrote: »

I don't think there was any physical or corroborative evidence as the events happened a long time before the accuser reported the matter to the police so there was no evidence trail.

This is the whole crux of the issue with this case and operation yewtree in general. How does the CPS expect to secure convictions on witness testimony alone?

alyssum

Yisroel Rhythmic Accelerator wrote: »

This is the whole crux of the issue with this case and operation yewtree in general. How does the CPS expect to secure convictions on witness testimony alone?

they have to be seen to try

Santa Cruz

alyssum wrote: »

they have to be seen to try

Is that excuse supposed to be justice?

Surely a senior legal officer should examine the evidence and deem it worth putting before a jury or not.

Trials are not to be used just to clear the air.

johnnyskeleton

Yisroel Rhythmic Accelerator wrote: »

This is the whole crux of the issue with this case and operation yewtree in general. How does the CPS expect to secure convictions on witness testimony alone?

I suppose their job isn't just mounting up convictions in a cost effective way, but rather ensuring that proper procedures are adhered to. If this means running a lot of trials that result in acquittals, so be it.

alyssum

Santa Cruz wrote: »

Is that excuse supposed to be justice?

Surely a senior legal officer should examine the evidence and deem it worth putting before a jury or not.

Trials are not to be used just to clear the air.

no just the way it is PR
i imagine they do unless the receptionist decides
never said to clear air but from a pr pov in the wake of saville

Alan_P

Yisroel Rhythmic Accelerator wrote: »

This is the whole crux of the issue with this case and operation yewtree in general. How does the CPS expect to secure convictions on witness testimony alone?

The same way they did in the Stuart Hall case. They present the witness testimony and the jury accepts it.

Frank Lee Midere

Alan_P wrote: »

The same way they did in the Stuart Hall case. They present the witness testimony and the jury accepts it.

Was there more than one victim in that case? If 10 people unknown to each other claim rape or abuse it gets more probable.

mrjoneill

bubblypop wrote: »

not guilty doesnt automatically = innocent.
just saying.

the injured party should NOT be 'named and shamed' unless it is shown that they made up the allegation and lied all the way through.

id hazard a guess that the CPS are terrified of not bringing these cases to court after the whole Jimmy Saville incident

If we go down that road of partial guilt or whatever tainting of a not guilty verdict why bother with a trial at all its like “guilty as charged”, that is like the innuendo that surrounded the Birmingham Six release. Not guilty clearly means the person so charged is an innocent person. Being on trial for armed robbery has completely different connotations afterwards that that of standing trial for child abuse. No doubt that person involved has got a career end (I’m not a soap opera fan) and will be the odium of society forever and to how to deal with such trials and the ensuing tainting of an innocent person forever as one gets with such trials I don’t know except there should be a high threshold of evidence before such goes to trial.

johnnyskeleton

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Was there more than one victim in that case? If 10 people unknown to each other claim rape or abuse it gets more probable.

Not really. In fact, where the person is a celebrity in a climate of witch hunting celebrities, 10 people making a claim against a person could be interpreted as a try on.

johnnyskeleton

mrjoneill wrote: »

If we go down that road of partial guilt or whatever tainting of a not guilty verdict why bother with a trial at all its like “guilty as charged”, that is like the innuendo that surrounded the Birmingham Six release. Not guilty clearly means the person so charged is an innocent person. Being on trial for armed robbery has completely different connotations afterwards that that of standing trial for child abuse. No doubt that person involved has got a career end (I’m not a soap opera fan) and will be the odium of society forever and to how to deal with such trials and the ensuing tainting of an innocent person forever as one gets with such trials I don’t know except there should be a high threshold of evidence before such goes to trial.

I don't think that poster was suggesting that we should have a system of partial guilt or anything of the kind.

He/she was simply pointing out that "not guilty" and "innocent" are two different concepts. It does not mean that a person found "not guilty" isn't "innocent", they are, but it does mean that a finding of "not guilty" is not the same as a finding of "innocent".

VONSHIRACH

On the basis that an alleged victim has the privilige of anonymity before, during and after a tial, surely this should be afforded to an alleged defendant. Either that, or no anonymity for either.

Pro Hoc Vice

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I don't think that poster was suggesting that we should have a system of partial guilt or anything of the kind.

He/she was simply pointing out that "not guilty" and "innocent" are two different concepts. It does not mean that a person found "not guilty" isn't "innocent", they are, but it does mean that a finding of "not guilty" is not the same as a finding of "innocent".

But a person can not be fount innocent, he entered the court innocent, judges and barristers make a huge issue of that fact in most cases. The person was before the jury verdict innocent that can only be removed by a finding of guilt a not guilty verdict just maintains the status quo of innocent.

v638sg7k1a92bx

Anyone know if there is any possible recourse for Michael Le Vell in terms of taking a civil case against the accuser for defamation of character etc?

Pro Hoc Vice

Yisroel Rhythmic Accelerator wrote: »

Anyone know if there is any possible recourse for Michael Le Vell in terms of taking a civil case against the accuser for defamation of character etc?

While there is a Defence of qualified Privilage, showing malice can over come that Defence. It would be a seriously risky move to take such an action, for a number of reasons, the defendant is a minor, the mother I assume has little or no assets, there is a possibility of not wining any action which could just add fuel to the fire.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

johnnyskeleton

infosys wrote: »

But a person can not be fount innocent, he entered the court innocent, judges and barristers make a huge issue of that fact in most cases. The person was before the jury verdict innocent that can only be removed by a finding of guilt a not guilty verdict just maintains the status quo of innocent.

How is that different to what I said?

Pro Hoc Vice

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

How is that different to what I said?

Maybe I misread the following "a finding of "not guilty" is not the same as a finding of "innocent". No one is found innocent they are innocent or guilty. Maybe I misunderstood your post.

v638sg7k1a92bx

infosys wrote: »

While there is a Defence of qualified Privilage, showing malice can over come that Defence. It would be a seriously risky move to take such an action, for a number of reasons, the defendant is a minor, the mother I assume has little or no assets, there is a possibility of not wining any action which could just add fuel to the fire.

I didn't think she was still a minor, the alleged attacks took place when she was minor?

Pro Hoc Vice

Yisroel Rhythmic Accelerator wrote: »

I didn't think she was still a minor, the alleged attacks took place when she was minor?

"The mother claimed her daughter, who is now 17 and cannot be identified for legal reasons,"

From http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/michael-le-vell-trial-mum-2247709

She is still a minor in law.

v638sg7k1a92bx

The CPS need to long and hard before bringing some of these cases to trial, and the comments on this thread in terms of "proven not guilty doesn't mean he's innocent" just emphasises how the stigma of merely being accused of a crime is enough for some people to draw their own conclusions.

Surely if there is a case for anonymity of alleged victims then the same argument must exist for pre-conviction anonyminity for the accused. Michael Le Vell has had details of his personal life, alcohol and marriage problems (which had nothing to do with the trial and don't see how this was relevant) broadcast by national media while the person who makes the allegation just walks off into the sunset and goes back to a normal life.

mrjoneill

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I don't think that poster was suggesting that we should have a system of partial guilt or anything of the kind.

He/she was simply pointing out that "not guilty" and "innocent" are two different concepts. It does not mean that a person found "not guilty" isn't "innocent", they are, but it does mean that a finding of "not guilty" is not the same as a finding of "innocent".

It’s ambiguous what was written and I take the view outside of the semantics involved it’s a diminution of a not guilty verdict in not equating the person as innocent.