Felix | Back to basics

It's back to school time and maybe we should all be going back to basics. The poor old criminal law and the poor old police and CPS are never left alone to get on with their jobs when it comes to allegations of sexual abuse. A recent public profile trial ends in an acquittal: fine, but what then follows are suggestions of a "witch hunt" and questions asked by the media as to why there had been a trial in the '¨first place.

All of this overlooks the fact that the criminal trial process is perfectly equipped to deal with the potential scenario that if there is no evidence that the defendant committed the crime, or that it is so weak or unreliable that no reasonable jury could safely convict then the judge is under a duty to stop the trial at the close of the prosecution case.

What is it about sexual offences trials and allegations that make everybody who is unconnected with the case such an expert? I know nothing of the most recent trial and have no opinion at all. All I see is a not guilty verdict, an understandably-relieved innocent man, and then we move on to the next news item.

So yes the criminal law can't get it right. If a person is acquitted they should never have been charged, and if a person shuffles off this mortal coil before anything is done about them then again it is the law's fault for not nailing an obvious criminal. Shouldn't it be a jury that decides on guilt and innocence according to the evidence and the burden and standard of proof, rather than politicians, journalists, professional pundits and newspapers? The police understand that, the Crown Prosecution Service understand that, the lawyers, judges and juries understand that, so why not everybody else?

Years ago a friend rang me in high dudgeon about a friend of hers who had been found in a girl's bedroom in circumstances that on one view could be considered to be unwelcome, surprising and arguably highly suspicious.

My friend was incandescent at the stupidity of the police for arresting the man, and was furious that he was charged. Trying to point out how it might look to a neutral observer, and the clear distress that the girl had experienced, all seemed to fall on deaf ears, until I had to point out how she might feel if it had been her bedroom, her alone and at night but the police took '¨a third-party's word for it and '¨let him go with a "mind how you go sir"?

Can't we all just let everybody get on with their jobs, roles and responsibilities according to the unbiased, neutrally-applied law, and let the law take its course and respect the verdicts as '¨they come?

Still, it does mean one thing: '¨if the government does succeed in getting rid of us completely then we are going to be missed after all, and at least somebody may think that there is a '¨point to defence barristers'¨after all. SJ