This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/11/michael-le-vell-cps-witch-hunt-prosecution

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Michael Le Vell: the CPS had no choice but to prosecute Michael Le Vell: the CPS had little choice but to prosecute
(about 5 hours later)
Following the acquittal of actor Michael Le Vell, the Crown Prosecution Service has been forced to defend its decision to prosecute him. Nazir Afzal, the chief crown prosecutor for the north west, has denied that there is a "witch-hunt" for celebrity abusers, pointing out quite reasonably that "the vast majority of child sex abusers are not … public figures."Following the acquittal of actor Michael Le Vell, the Crown Prosecution Service has been forced to defend its decision to prosecute him. Nazir Afzal, the chief crown prosecutor for the north west, has denied that there is a "witch-hunt" for celebrity abusers, pointing out quite reasonably that "the vast majority of child sex abusers are not … public figures."
Ken Morley, one of Le Vell's colleagues, told the Mail that there was "never any physical or forensic evidence or psychiatric report". The point was echoed by someone described by the Telegraph as a "legal source close to the case", who apparently said it should never have been taken to trial as there was "not a shred of evidence". Leaving aside the Le Vell case for a moment, this raises wider issues of how the criminal justice system deals with reports of historic child abuse.Ken Morley, one of Le Vell's colleagues, told the Mail that there was "never any physical or forensic evidence or psychiatric report". The point was echoed by someone described by the Telegraph as a "legal source close to the case", who apparently said it should never have been taken to trial as there was "not a shred of evidence". Leaving aside the Le Vell case for a moment, this raises wider issues of how the criminal justice system deals with reports of historic child abuse.
What sort of evidence could exist in such a case? Physical or forensic evidence is clearly long since gone. A psychiatrist can't diagnose historic child abuse – and a seemingly supportive diagnosis, such as one of PTSD, could relate to any traumatic event.What sort of evidence could exist in such a case? Physical or forensic evidence is clearly long since gone. A psychiatrist can't diagnose historic child abuse – and a seemingly supportive diagnosis, such as one of PTSD, could relate to any traumatic event.
What most commentators overlook is that the word of the complainant is evidence. That evidence might be compelling or it might be weak, but it is evidence nonetheless. Truthful witnesses can be word-perfect and self-assured; they can also be inconsistent, shaking with nerves, giggling inappropriately, or suffer from imperfect recollection. A witness who is strong in interview may fall apart in the courtroom. It cannot, and must not, be the job of the CPS to take on the role of judge and jury, deciding in advance that a potentially credible witness should be disbelieved merely because there is no corroboratory evidence. To do otherwise would be to relinquish any responsibility for prosecuting child abuse, because the offence by its very nature is unlikely to take place in front of witnesses, and because it is not uncommon for it to come to light many years later.What most commentators overlook is that the word of the complainant is evidence. That evidence might be compelling or it might be weak, but it is evidence nonetheless. Truthful witnesses can be word-perfect and self-assured; they can also be inconsistent, shaking with nerves, giggling inappropriately, or suffer from imperfect recollection. A witness who is strong in interview may fall apart in the courtroom. It cannot, and must not, be the job of the CPS to take on the role of judge and jury, deciding in advance that a potentially credible witness should be disbelieved merely because there is no corroboratory evidence. To do otherwise would be to relinquish any responsibility for prosecuting child abuse, because the offence by its very nature is unlikely to take place in front of witnesses, and because it is not uncommon for it to come to light many years later.
At the same time, new CPS guidelines point out that the factors often used to point to the untruthfulness of a witness – including not reporting the offence immediately, an inconsistent account, voluntary return to the alleged abuser, a history of dishonesty or of drink or drugs abuse – may in fact support the allegations, because such behaviour is often seen in victims of abuse.At the same time, new CPS guidelines point out that the factors often used to point to the untruthfulness of a witness – including not reporting the offence immediately, an inconsistent account, voluntary return to the alleged abuser, a history of dishonesty or of drink or drugs abuse – may in fact support the allegations, because such behaviour is often seen in victims of abuse.
Those who criticise the CPS for prosecuting Le Vell offer no alternative. Are we really suggesting that where the only evidence is that of the complainant, no prosecution should take place unless the outcome is 100% guaranteed? That would be an abrogation of justice for many victims and would allow abusers to molest children with impunity. Evidence from the victims was all there was in the cases of Stuart Hall, Graham Ovenden and Gordon Rideout – and no reasonable person would suggest that the CPS should not have brought those cases.Those who criticise the CPS for prosecuting Le Vell offer no alternative. Are we really suggesting that where the only evidence is that of the complainant, no prosecution should take place unless the outcome is 100% guaranteed? That would be an abrogation of justice for many victims and would allow abusers to molest children with impunity. Evidence from the victims was all there was in the cases of Stuart Hall, Graham Ovenden and Gordon Rideout – and no reasonable person would suggest that the CPS should not have brought those cases.
It is sadly inevitable that on occasion innocent people will be prosecuted. On those occasions it is crucial that the accused has access to expert legal advice (something that is currently under threat from legal aid reforms) and is able to put forward their defence. It is particularly sad that sensitive aspects of Le Vell's private life were revealed when his conduct was put under scrutiny – but that is not the fault of the CPS. They did the right thing in prosecuting. Let's keep trusting juries to do the right thing too.It is sadly inevitable that on occasion innocent people will be prosecuted. On those occasions it is crucial that the accused has access to expert legal advice (something that is currently under threat from legal aid reforms) and is able to put forward their defence. It is particularly sad that sensitive aspects of Le Vell's private life were revealed when his conduct was put under scrutiny – but that is not the fault of the CPS. They did the right thing in prosecuting. Let's keep trusting juries to do the right thing too.