William Roache in court

Surely the CPS need to toughen up here.
I know their under severe pressure but surely its a better option all round to be honest with an accuser and say look there's just not sufficient evidence, no forensics no witnesses no recent incidents, rather than proceeding to trial, the expense the destroying of the accused, just so they can say well, you've had your day in court?

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

So will Ken be back on the street do you think? That's the most important thing! Just give him some fake tan and and say he was visiting his step brother in New Zealand or summat. At least he didn't have to endure Hailey's funeral and Fizz's speech.

...and Rita can say "there's nowt as queer as folk" LOL

WikiHow wrote: »

Can he now turn around and take legal action against his accusers?

The simplest, most straightforward answer is - No, he can't.

His accusers were appearing as witnesses for the CPS, who took the case, so effectively Roache could only take a civil case for compensation for legal costs against the CPS. I don't think he will tbh, he's had enough of his private life subjected to public scrutiny already.

It would be up to the CPS to bring a case against the women, but I don't think they're likely to do that either.

This glorified witch-hunt against "celebrities" is a complete farce.

The CPS have cocked this up massively.

After the uproar with the Saville situation they have been overly-aggressive in prosecuting celebrities. Better to be seen to be doing something than nothing - even when the evidence in some of these cases was tenuous at best.

The following arrested post-Saville:

Jim Davidson
Bill Roache
Michael le Vell
Dave Lee Travers
Rolf Harris
Stuart Hall

Apart from Stuart Hall, who pleaded guilty, it's stongly looking like 1 out of 6.

And some of the "evidence" and allegations against Stuart Hall were perplexing to say the least.

The nature of the evidence against Roache is very disturbing. Out of 5 women, when it got to trial:

1 accuser had "no memory" of the actual event.
1 accuser changes her testimony to a very vital part of how old she was when it happened.
1 accuser claims Mike Baldwin from Corro (aka Briggs) warned her off Roache, despite it being shown he wasn't even on the show at the time.

That's amazingly shoddy from the CPS to bring a case with that type of evidence above.

Worryingly, you'd have to question whether they would have brought the case if the Defendant wasn't famous? Can't see it. They wouldn't waste a Judge and Jury's time with flimsy evidence such as this.

So what we are left with is this: A rash of arrests in the spate of months post-Saville. Appearing to be doing something. Then bringing these cases to court so the CPS can at least spare themselves (and the police) any culpability and say "well the jury made their decision".

It would be unbalanced, unfair and unwise to dismiss the fact that victims of sexual abuse crime are permitted to compensation. To dismiss money as a motivating factor in some of these cases would be foolish. Especially as almost all of those cases are Historic Cases ranging from the 1950s to 1980s. The compensation alone is small but the potential benefits from selling their story etc are high.

I'm not sure how comfortable i am with ignoring the culture of the day either.

My dad assures me that if every man in the Swinging 60s who ever inappropriately touched a female was brought up in court in the UK we'd be looking at hundreds of thousands of cases -and he noted if every girl who did likewise we'd be looking at a lot more on top. Yet there seems to be very few non-celebrities in the news on historical allegations.

The 60s, hippies , free love. In the modern era, if you touched a girls breasts without permission at a concert (or any place) it's sexual assault, for sure, and legally it was back then - but i'm told in that decade it was generally peace, love, dope and nobody really cared! So you end up with some possible perverse situations where a man or woman was touched inappropriately in the 1960s, had no problem with it at the time but now retrospectively has a problem with it!

To use todays sensibilities and apply them retroactively seems grossly unfair to me. At some point in time it has to become pure farce. Suppose for the sake of argument a man lives until 135 years old and a woman of similar age decided then is the time to report an incident from 1889? Not only would laws be slightly dissimilar in 1889, the spirit of the law and the culture of the era would be massively different.

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Seriously? They have not been convicted of any of these crimes.

They may be in the future.
Its also quite possible, even likely, that this case will reside in the massive legal grey area of cases where there is not evidence to convict and also not enough to suggest a false allegation.

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Well there are huge consequences if found guilty of perjury, its an offence with potentially a big sentence.
However merely not being believed when you appear as a prosecution witness (as these girls were) doesn't signify guilt. Otherwise by definition ~50% of the witnesses in every court case would be guilty of perjury?

I just find it terrible that so many AH posters have this attitude that if the defendant is declared innocent then by definition the other side must be automatically guilty of perjury/false allegation etc.

Like how many girls would read this attitude and think twice about making a genuine assault report to the police?

+1

Not securing a conviction does not imply lies. It never should.

However, i'm not comfortable with the CPS role in all this. It's up to them to bring the case yet also up to them to prosecute a witness for false allegations.

There's an inherent conflict of interest there. Not only would the CPS "lose face" in doing so, but it's not good for the public image either - it looks like one minute they believe the allegations, next minute they don't and decide to prosecute. That sends out a further worrying drawback which would only deter genuine women/men coming forward with allegations.

Once it gets to the CPS stage, barring a complete confession, i fail to see how many genuinely malicious false accusers will be brought to task on them. The conflict of interest is too high.

Czarcasm wrote: »

The simplest, most straightforward answer is - No, he can't.

His accusers were appearing as witnesses for the CPS, who took the case, so effectively Roache could only take a civil case for compensation for legal costs against the CPS. I don't think he will tbh, he's had enough of his private life subjected to public scrutiny already.

It would be up to the CPS to bring a case against the women, but I don't think they're likely to do that either.

Ditto LeVell. Honestly it's a poor system whereby after having their life turned upside down, the onus is still on them to pursue compensation through the civil courts. Whilst it's understandable it still doesn't lend any more protection to those falsely accused , given their legal avenues involve further stress they are unlikely to be up for.

IvySlayer wrote: »

I'm glad they won't get their compensation, won't be able be to sell their made-up stories to magazines/newspaper

Roache should sue them for defamation, loss of earnings, etc

As ill informed posts go, the above is a beauty tbh.

He's 83! And has hair! And didn't wee on himself! Lucky sod. If I get to 83, ye can accuse me of whatever ye like. I'll just be glad to have hit 83.

wonderfullife wrote: »

Ah i'm sure you know what he meant. (that BR deserves something for all this)

Obviously there's no grounds for defamation etc

But Roache is likely to have suffered financially and emotionally. Nature of the beast in court-room situations i guess.

I doubt he has the appetite to seek recovery from the CPS but i feel they did fail Roache massively. This should never have got to court.

When you have alleged victims (3 of them) changing sworn statements during trial, it doesn't speak much to their credibility. It's one thing to forget minor details and quite another to forget how old you were when you're alleging a man sexually abused you!! Or falsely alleging an actor warned you off the defendant, then shown to be impossible. Or worst of all , having "no actual memory" of the allegation you're making!!

The CPS are to blame for that. Whoever thought there was sufficient evidence or witness credibility here needs sacking. Won't happen but i wouldn't be averse to a public apology by the CPS to Roache. They messed up big time.

See this is the thing, the CPS were never going to take a prosecution lightly, and even more so when they're going up against the legal might of a celebrity who can afford the best solicitors that will wipe the floor with the prosecution.

I know you're thinking "witness credibility" but there would be all manner of pre-trial procedures carried out where witnesses would go through rigorous interrogation processes and psychological interviews questioning every aspect of their testimony, Bill Roache would've been put through the same rigorous interview process, evidence would be gathered and a case built and sent forward to the DPP to decide if they even HAD a case. A decision would come back and then they'd go over everything with a fine tooth comb again, prepare witnesses, get their ducks in a row...

But all that work is worth Jack shìt if the witness bottles it on the day on the stand, recants their statement, changes their story, gets intimidated by the prosecution, doesn't get the details bang on, even facing their accuser in Court, or knowing how the media and public are judging them, even their own family, friends and neighbours. They still have to go back to their lives after the trial too. The pressure on witnesses can be incredible, and often times you'll hear them say how they felt like THEY were the person on trial, because the burden of proof, despite how the media makes it look, really IS on the witnesses, and not on the accused, who has the default presumption of innocence.

I doubt any apology will be forthcoming tbh, but remember I said Bill Roache is unlikely to sue the CPS for legal costs (because that's all he'd be entitled to sue for), well, it appears Michael LeVeil doesn't feel that way -


Michael Le Vell to sue CPS for 'two years of hell' after legal battle that cost £200,000

There's every chance he could win his case if he actually were to sue (Daily Mail, pinch of salt), but that could take years to come before the Courts, not nearly enough in time to hurt the ongoing spate of investigations the CPS is currently investigating and processing.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You have a lot of faith in several of the actors in the UK justice system.

I don't get what you mean Button? I thought that post was an impartial explanation of the facts, as many here seemed to be under the impression that the accusers testimonies aren't rigorously checked and investigated and there are numerous procedures to go through before anyone be they the prosecution or the defence would even set foot inside a courtroom.

Another celebrity that was left off the list wonderfulife posted earlier was Max Clifford, whose trial is due to start on the 4th of March -


Max Clifford pleads not guilty to indecent assault charges

wonderfullife wrote: »

As a massive football and sports fan i've seen "bottling it" quite often....

But i really don't think you could describe this situation as bottling it.

If someone goes from a detailed statement to "i have no actual memory of the incident" under cross-examination, that's not bottling it - that's someone who clearly shouldn't be on the stand in the first place.

More to the point, in most of these alleged victims, the Prosecution failed to even show Bill Roache had ever met them in his entire life! Surely if you're going to try prove he committed sexual crimes, it'd be helpful to prove he actually met the victims at some stage in his life!!

It's all very wishy washy stuff.

"He assaulted me near Granada Studios."

-"oh yes, when?"

"Can't remember".

That's roughly the strength of one alleged victims case and that should never get to a court-room!!

In fact, you'd have to seriously, genuinely, in good faith question the sanity of one alleged victim. She argued that Johnny Briggs warned her off Mr Roache.

As it so happens she never even met Mr Briggs.

But it also so happens that his character, Mike Baldwin, was Ken Barlows arch-enemy and love rival for donkeys years on the soap!! In reading that evidence i sat here thinking i'm convinced this woman thinks Mike Baldwin warned her off Ken Barlow!!

When challenged that Mr Briggs wasn't in the soap at the time of her allegation, she changed her story to "oh it was a different actor" and when pressed couldn't give a name for this other actor.

The whole case was riddled with tenuous, unsafe, wishy washy evidence and my only surprise is the Judge only struck out 1 count. He should have dismissed the whole thing and seriously rebuked the CPS for bringing this nonsense before him.

Hear hear

Beefy78 wrote: »

Having been through the UK Court system as the main prosecution witness I can tell you with complete certainty that this is not the case. In fact I wish it had have been the case. Instead they take your interview testimony and 12 months later you're in the dock under cross-examination. No real preparation, no opportunity to speak with the Prosecutor.

It's an eye-opening experience. Quite how the CPS manage to convict anyone is a bit of a mystery to me.

I can only take your word for it Beefy as opposed to people I've talked to who have been through the UK system who's experience has differed from yours. That's not to discount your experience, it's just to say that it was unfortunately your individual personal experience and I only have your word on the Internet for that.

gramar wrote: »

I don't think the CPS really did their homework in this case.
One of the charges brought was for an alleged assault that the accusor couldn't remember but was fairly sure had happened. Surely they could have seen that this would undermine an already very difficult case to prove and stuck with the other 6 or charges?

As you would expect the Judge instructed the jury to disregard this charge and return a 'not guilty' verdict. I'd love to hear why they would bring what was effectively an imaginary charge.

Tbh gramar we'll never know the full facts of what happened there, but one of the things I do know is that the police work with a number of organisations in the UK and this type of incident is quite common (I don't have accurate figures off hand or anything unfortunately), but the reason you don't often hear about cases collapsing like this is because, well, they're not as high profile as Operation Yewtree.

I got the impression from the Le Vell case and now more than ever that they are out to prove that the CPS take this type of accusation very seriously and I think they need a trophy conviction to show they are determined to prosecute in these cases and curry public favour.

Cynical, but not entirely unexpected point of view to be be fair given how things have turned out so far, but that's the problem when taking these cases where there are a number of factors involved such as the time elapsed being the biggest one, the public profile of the accused, etc, but I suppose when you're spending public money prosecuting these cases, the public want to see results, and indeed the CPS could well have shot themselves in the foot on this occasion. Again, same as the LeVeil case, mistakes were made, but the CPS are treading a fine line between public interest, and obligation to the public.

I'm not saying victims are lying, simply that the CPS seem desperate to prosecute someone having let Saville get away before he died but they are
choosing their cases very poorly as they are impossible to prove.

They're proving impossible because the public want their pound of flesh so to speak, but look what the CPS are being given to work with! It really is an impossible task, but I would hope not an entirely futile one. I mean, if you look at for example the findings of the various reports that have been commissioned to investigate abuse within the RCC and institutions here in Ireland, I think they're investigating cases as far back as the 1930s! How many of us would question the sensibility of that? Yet because the public likes their celebrities more than their clergymen, there's nobody going to get too bent out of shape when a false accusation is made against a priest or say that "Well one or two alleged victims are proven to have lied so that casts a shadow over them all", and yet that's exactly what's being done here because the person on trial is a celebrity.