We need to reintroduce robust scepticism into the investigation of historical sexual abuse, writes @LukeSGittos1986 http://t.co/puNiqZJYIH— spiked (@spikedonline) October 12, 2015
There is an easy way to solve this problem.
All complainants should satisfy the condition of being able to stand up in court and satisfying the criminal burden of proof.
The civil balance of probability is 50+%.
The criminal standard of proof is 75+%.
If you have a complaint ask yourself these questions:
1. Were there any witnesses or is it uncorroborated testimony?
2. Are they still alive?
4. Can you get hold of them?
5. Are they of good character?
6. Are they credible witnesses?
7. Might they have an axe to grind with the person who are thinking of accusing?
8. If there were no witnesses and your testimony cannot be corroborated by anyone else, do you have any other evidence against the person you considering accusing?
If your answer to 7 is YES and NO to all the other questions FORGET IT.
If you still go ahead you should be done for wasting police time.
Policemen who proceed with this kind of dodgy evidence should be found guilty of malicious prosecution.
DPPs Keir Starmer and Alison Saunders should be forced to apologise for causing so much injustice by diluting the requirement of the criminal standard of proof ie beyond reasonable doubt to balance of probability in sexual assault cases.
Alison Saunders should resign for allowing this nonsense to carry on under her watch and immediately review Rolf Harris's case.
Keir Starmer should be named and shamed for his "victim's law" which started all this nonsense because it undermined the principle of the criminal standard of of guilt beyond reasonable doubt which has resulted in so many probable miscarriages of justice. Keir Starmer heads Labour's victim treatment review