Crowd Funding a Prosecution for a serious offence?

[Tunney]

So how’d you get a higher proportion of rapists convicted?

I’d ask victims what stopped or delayed them from coming forward. I’d look at ways to improve evidence gathering.

I don’t have the answers but refuse to believe that we can’t do better.

 

[Destination]

Has one to achieve anything before one can bring a criminal offence privately?
Obviously one employs the 'crown' barristers etc for such a case, and it is heard under similar rules to criminal law (beyond all reasonably doubt, rather than on balance of probabilities)
Have there been private prosecutions for other things in our nation in recent history?

This is rather interesting, and indeed, i don't see the concept as a bad thing. usually if they don't decide to prosecute, you are stuck with a potential civil suit.

 

[=XDC=FluphyBunny]

And from the other side of the equation Mark Pearson LINK would seem to show that the CPS would prosecute anything and everything to try and up their conviction rates so maybe we don't know some important facts. In Pearson's case, there was clear CCTV footage of him clearly doing nothing and yet they allowed the case to go to court.

 

[Destination]

Thanks

 

[Vonhelmet]

To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, surely it's better that 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent be punished for something they didn't do?

On the other hand, it's better for 10 guilty men to be punished than none, so there is clearly work to do.

 

[Haggisman]

On the other hand, it's better for 10 guilty men to be punished than none, so there is clearly work to do.

I absolutely agree, what are your suggestions for increasing the conviction rates for accusations of rape whilst ensuring innocent people aren't wrongfully convicted?

Barring a prior signed contract, witnessed by a verifiably independent third party, there's no way of proving consent (and even then, if she changes her mind before hand or even part way through, if you don't stop immediately then it's still classed as rape). So basically, the only 100% methods would be no sex and make sure you clinically dispose of any "personal waste", or make sure you film/have independent witnesses of the whole event

 

[dowie]

Surprised this hasn't already been posted;

https://news.sky.com/story/in-her-o...nding-for-justice-after-alleged-rape-11118199
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41885897

Not sure how I feel about it, now I know anyone can take anyone to court and that it is a civil matter and no criminal record etc. But with the burden of proof lower, what if she wins?

I think you're mistaken there - it isn't a civil matter, she's not suing him she's crowdfunding a criminal prosecution... there would be a criminal record in that case and quite likely jail time if she wins. Burden of proof is the same as if the CPS tries it. In fact the CPS would likely take over the prosecution if she say had the funds to get private detectives gather sufficient evidence to make that prosecution likely to be successful.

There was this case not so long ago where a man was falsely accused of rape and then took out a private prosecution against his accuser, she then committed suicide. I guess the CPS isn't a big fan of private prosecutions as, if successful they kind of highlight where they've screwed up and rather badly handled a case.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/cri...y-man-she-accused-of-raping-her-a3257501.html

 

[dowie]

Is a private prosecution decided on the balance of probabilities? I didn't think that was the case.

All this changes is who the prosecuting body is. The CPS acts for the state, but it is not the only body that can prosecute. It would be a worse precedent to set if you dictated that only the CPS could decide what to prosecute as that could be open to abuse in terms of a government body deciding what gets taken to court. The judiciary has to be separate from the legislature and the executive.

AFAIK the CPS can still kill a case by taking over the private prosecution (IIRC they're able to do this when they want) and then just dropping it.

 

[Caracus2k]

Having read the BBC article I can't say I'm at all surprised that the CPS decided against a prosecution in this case.

Unfortunately the claim that someone has had their drink 'spiked' is an all to often made and rarely susbtaitated claim.

If people's drinks have been 'spiked' with anything it's normally just good old fashion alcohol and generally of the self adminsitered sort.

But given the natural tendencies of humans it's understandable that people would rather not take responsibility for their own actions (like getting drunk and doing something they later regret) and would rather seek an external locus for their poorly judged behaviour perhaps by blaming someone else.

As a correct judge said a few years back now drunken consent is still consent. You have to be so drunk as to not be able to offer consent to be 'too drunk to consent'. That you claim that you would not have made the same decision sober is irrelevant. The alterative is to, in practise, make any sexual encounter involving any party even slightly inebriated into a rape / sexual assault.

 

[Vonhelmet]

AFAIK the CPS can still kill a case by taking over the private prosecution (IIRC they're able to do this when they want) and then just dropping it.

Indeed, I read that on the cps page and I think someone linked to it above.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Having read the BBC article I can't say I'm at all surprised that the CPS decided against a prosecution in this case.

Unfortunately the claim that someone has had their drink 'spiked' is an all to often made and rarely susbtaitated claim.

If people's drinks have been 'spiked' with anything it's normally just good old fashion alcohol and generally of the self adminsitered sort.

But given the natural tendencies of humans it's understandable that people would rather not take responsibility for their own actions (like getting drunk and doing something they later regret) and would rather seek an external locus for their poorly judged behaviour perhaps by blaming someone else.

As a correct judge said a few years back now drunken consent is still consent. You have to be so drunk as to not be able to offer consent to be 'too drunk to consent'. That you claim that you would not have made the same decision sober is irrelevant. The alterative is to, in practise, make any sexual encounter involving any party even slightly ingerbriated into a rape / sexual assault.

I assume they'll be calling on you to give your evidence that her drink was categorically not spiked?

 

[Caracus2k]

I assume they'll be calling on you to give your evidence that her drink was categorically not spiked?

You clearly know absolutely nothing about how a criminal court works in the UK. It's not for the defendant to prove, that what the prosecution alleges, didn't happen.

You also appear to know nothing about science either. No scientist would categorically say that a person could not have consumed a large range of potential substances from a sample taken some hours after the alleged ingestion from said person.....

 

[dowie]

I assume they'll be calling on you to give your evidence that her drink was categorically not spiked?

it is pretty well known that drink spiking is incredibly rare and the vast majority of people who've claimed to be spiked were not - it just is something people (mostly women) believe happened to them when in reality they just got a bit drunk

see this study from an Australian hospital looking at 100 people who believed they'd been spiked and not a single one actually had any trace of a sedative... and only 5 seemed to have had additional alcohol outside of their reported drinking.

https://thewest.com.au/news/australia/drink-spiking-a-myth-wa-study-ng-ya-245174

Drink spiking is largely a myth and far more likely to be an excuse young women use after they become heavily intoxicated, according to WA research.

A Perth study of suspected drink spiking victims found claims of being given sedatives or illicit drugs without consent are exaggerated and that alcohol is often the real culprit.

The results, published in the journal of the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine, are based on 100 patients who attended Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital and Joondalup Health Campus over 19 months with suspected drink spiking from the previous 12 hours.

Almost nine out of 10 cases were women and almost 60 per cent of those were under the age of 25.

QEII Medical Centre clinical toxicologist Mark Little said the findings did not support the public perception of sedatives being placed by men into the drinks of women for the purpose of sexual assault or robbing them.

"Drink spiking with sedative or illicit drugs appears to be rare and if it does occur alcohol appears to be the most common agent used," he said.

Dr Little said what was more concerning was the big number of people in the study who had taken illicit drugs such as cannabis or amphetamines or consumed excessive amounts of alcohol, which made it difficult to establish if a person had truly been given a spiked drink.

On average, people in the study had a blood alcohol concentration of .096 and reported having consumed between 3.8 and 11.6 standard drinks. The researchers said they did not identify a single case where a sedative drug was likely to have been placed illegally in a drink in a pub or nightclub.

The study also showed that many people remained in denial, with more than a third still believing they had been victims of drink spiking, irrespective of test results which disproved this.

Only five out of the 100 patients had blood alcohol levels which did not match with how much they reported drinking, raising the possibility that alcohol had been added to their drinks.

 

[TallPaul1878]

This will ultimately fail. It has to fail otherwise it sets a dangerous precident. Anyone can make a spurious allegation against someone and get some schmucks to bankroll the case.

 

[Haggisman]

This will ultimately fail. It has to fail otherwise it sets a dangerous precident. Anyone can make a spurious allegation against someone and get some schmucks to bankroll the case.

Isn't that basically how the American legal system works?

It’s not pay to win . They’d have to get a jury to believe he’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt . And it’d be stopped by the CPS if it was purely vexatious or malicious, if you bother to read the cps link.

If the guy is innocent then does it matter if they win? he's having his name dragged through the mud again, and having to bankroll his own defence, while the accuser has basically no risk - out of interest, how much of her own money is she putting into it?

 

[TallPaul1878]

It’s not pay to win . They’d have to get a jury to believe he’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt . And it’d be stopped by the CPS if it was purely vexatious or malicious, if you bother to read the cps link.

That's exactly my point. CPS can and will over-rule on it. They can't let it go because it sets a precedent and future cases brought in this way will have a reference point of argument.

I wasn't suggesting it was pay to win. I understand perfectly how the burden of proof works.

"Bother to read the link" pathetic little remark.

 

[Haggisman]

Ignore

 

[dowie]

That's exactly my point. CPS can and will over-rule on it. They can't let it go because it sets a precedent and future cases brought in this way will have a reference point of argument.

I'm not sure what president it sets, if she gathers sufficient evidence then they won't necessarily try and shut it down, they might well take over the case and prosecute it themselves. I don't think there is any worrying precedent here, private prosecutions have been around for quite some time.

 

[Vonhelmet]

You clearly know absolutely nothing about how a criminal court works in the UK. It's not for the defendant to prove, that what the prosecution alleges, didn't happen.

Indeed, so I rather wonder why you went off on one about how she was just very drunk.

That was what you said, right?

You also appear to know nothing about science either. No scientist would categorically say that a person could not have consumed a large range of potential substances from a sample taken some hours after the alleged ingestion from said person.....

Indeed, so again I wonder why you seem so certain that she was merely drunk.

 

[Hotwired]

So... what if she's totally in the wrong but hellbent on this?

The CPS didn't charge the man I woke up next to in the hotel room because there wasn't a case and I say I don't remember anything but lets go with definitely rape.

Donate to help me create a miserable experience for someone.

It's not a case of something definitely happened, it's waking up next to someone in a hotel and flipping out with no actual proof of foul play.

I'm not entirely convinced by people who lose memory after drinking but I have known people who say it happens to them while I am entirely sure they drank nothing but alcohol that evening. A large quantity but still just alcohol.