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/law/2015/jun/15/cps-why-took-stacey-hyde-case-to-court

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
CPS: Why we took Stacey Hyde case to court CPS: Why we took Stacey Hyde case to court
(2 days later)
It is of course right that Stacey Hyde is able to speak about her experience of the criminal justice system, but your article ‘I never considered myself a murderer’ (12 June) fails to address key points. In its judgment quashing the original murder conviction, the court of appeal ordered a retrial, saying “a life has been taken and it is not for this court in the circumstances of this case to decide whether that should be visited with a verdict of murder or manslaughter”. The CPS agreed with that view, and put the case before a jury to decide. It is of course right that Stacey Hyde is able to speak about her experience of the criminal justice system, but your article ‘I never considered myself a murderer’ (12 June) fails to address key points. In its judgment quashing the original murder conviction, the court of appeal ordered a retrial, saying “a life has been taken and it is not for this court in the circumstances of this case to decide whether that should be visited with a verdict of murder or manslaughter”. The CPS agreed with that view, and put the case before a jury to decide.
Related: CPS’s blinkered approach to evidence in Stacey Hyde case | Letters
A key piece of evidence, absent from your article, was the fact that Ms Hyde left the scene of the original incident only to return armed with the kitchen knife then used in the stabbing. We said this indicated an intent to kill or cause grievous harm rather than a momentary loss of control or act of self-defence against an immediate threat, an issue that we thought appropriate for a jury to consider. We respect the jury’s verdict. I do not, however, accept that your reporting has shown the necessary balance to properly inform the public.Barry HughesChief crown prosecutor, Crown Prosecution Service South West @cpsukA key piece of evidence, absent from your article, was the fact that Ms Hyde left the scene of the original incident only to return armed with the kitchen knife then used in the stabbing. We said this indicated an intent to kill or cause grievous harm rather than a momentary loss of control or act of self-defence against an immediate threat, an issue that we thought appropriate for a jury to consider. We respect the jury’s verdict. I do not, however, accept that your reporting has shown the necessary balance to properly inform the public.Barry HughesChief crown prosecutor, Crown Prosecution Service South West @cpsuk