Re: Huhne and Pryce out : Tue May 14, 2013 11:59 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

I'll make one up for you if you like though - a male is accused of rape by a female who he has been in a relationship with, he denies it stating it was consensual, the CPS opinion is that it will be one word against the other in court and put it to the accused that he can accept a caution with no record on the sex offenders list, or take his chance in court.

A caution may only be issued in cases where the offender has made a 'clear and reliable admission' (of his guilt) and there is a 'realistic prospect' of a conviction. In the made up example you have given, neither of these conditions are met. Indeed, the CPS won't take any case to court on one person's word against another. There are two tests that are applied before they accept a case for prosecution: the evidential test (is there a realistic prospect of conviction) and the public interest test (is it in the public interest to pursue a conviction).

Again, I fail to see why, if the offender has made a 'clear and reliable admission' that he raped someone, and if there is sufficient evidence that there is a 'realistic prospect' of conviction, the matter should be dealt with by way of a caution.

JerryChicken wrote:

There, I've made that up completely and am not even sure if its a valid example, but its plausible, the truth is that it will have been done after careful consideration by the agencies concerned and isn't just some copper pushing a file across his desk and saying "Oh I can't be arsed with this, give him a bloody caution, I'm off home".

I'm quite sure it isn't the decision of one "can't be arsed" copper, but it's been fairly well documented over a period of several years that the criminal justice system is often found wanting when it comes to how they deal with sex crimes and victims of sex crimes.

I'm not some hysterical Daily Mail reader looking for something to feel outraged about, and I have genuinely considered a range of potential circumstances where this course of action may be appropriate. I just can't for the life of me think of a situation where a person has admitted rape, where there is evidence that they have committed rape, and it's appropriate to administer a police caution.

[DaveO]

Re: Huhne and Pryce out : Tue May 14, 2013 4:24 pm  

Him wrote:

Not to mention the fact that some people who have been raped or sexually assaulted are often unwilling to go through the whole court process.

That may be true but equally it might not be the reason. We don't know but either way that doesn't make any difference to the fact serious crimes are resulting in cautions but the Hulme case was like the trial of the century. The cautions also relate to other offences such as drug dealing which don't need a victim for prosecution to take place in any case.

Re: Huhne and Pryce out : Wed May 15, 2013 9:48 am  

Rock God X wrote:

Again, I fail to see why, if the offender has made a 'clear and reliable admission' that he raped someone, and if there is sufficient evidence that there is a 'realistic prospect' of conviction, the matter should be dealt with by way of a caution.
.

I like everyone on here do not know the ins and outs of why there are cautions for rape. What I would say though is that the police, CPS, social services, victims and guardians are all consulted in the process when required. I like most can't think of many reasons why you would be cautioned for rape. But at the risk of wording this wrongly I would throw in two possibles.
The teenage boy who thinks his girlfriend is over the age of consent. There are many examples of this. Is that rape? Well if she is under 13 yes, but there is a grey area from 13 to 16 depending I would say on the age of the suspect. I have no examples to share but I would imagine its hard to make the right decision in these cases.
Also think of adults with mental ages of children. They have sex. Is she of the correct mental ability to consent? I don't know enough to be able to say, but I am sure that would be a tough call.
I could be way off the mark here, but sadly its not as black and white as the press seem to think.

Going back to Pryce and Huhne. I fail to see what holding them any longer will serve to do. They have done 8 weeks I believe. That's a full 8 weeks more than I could ever do. They will not reoffend for that I am certain. Their lives as they knew them are ruined. Lets move on.
As for trial of the century as I think it was referred. That's the press for you not the criminal justice system. Within court they were treated in exactly the same way as anyone else.

Re: Huhne and Pryce out : Wed May 15, 2013 11:49 am  

Rock God X wrote:

A caution may only be issued in cases where the offender has made a 'clear and reliable admission' (of his guilt) and there is a 'realistic prospect' of a conviction. ...
Again, I fail to see why, if the offender has made a 'clear and reliable admission' that he raped someone, and if there is sufficient evidence that there is a 'realistic prospect' of conviction, the matter should be dealt with by way of a caution.
... I just can't for the life of me think of a situation where a person has admitted rape, where there is evidence that they have committed rape, and it's appropriate to administer a police caution.

The m,an's admittedly a Tory scumbag toilet, but Grayling explained that

Mr Grayling said MPs of all parties would regard cautions for rapes as ‘being completely unacceptable’.

But he told the Commons that in ‘cases where the victim is absolutely unwilling to give evidence, it may be the only way of getting something on the record about an offender’.

Re: Huhne and Pryce out : Wed May 15, 2013 12:40 pm  

@airlie_bird wrote:

The teenage boy who thinks his girlfriend is over the age of consent. There are many examples of this. Is that rape? Well if she is under 13 yes, but there is a grey area from 13 to 16...

Consensual sex with a person between the ages of 13 and 16 is not classed as rape.

Re: Huhne and Pryce out : Wed May 15, 2013 12:44 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

The m,an's admittedly a Tory scumbag toilet, but Grayling explained that

I can see that point, but I then begin to wonder why a perpetrator would confess to rape if the victim was unwilling to appear in court. If the case rests on the victim's testimony and the defendant knows that she won't testify, why cough to it?