Crown court yesterday
Notifications OFF
Hi,
Yesterday my OH attend Crown Court for the 2nd time, 1st time the judge stopped proceedings and agreed the images needed to be viewed independently. We paid for them to be viewed by an ex police inspector who is now a consultant.
He did a fantastic report and confirmed that the images were daft crude jokes and not at all sexual in nature and certainly not sent in any sexual way, they were in various watsapp groups.
For the second time the judge asked CPS if they thought it was really in the public interest to proceed, Cps disagreed with the independent report and said it wasn't an expert opinion.
The judge then asked if the images were indeed indecent then where was the other members of the watsapp groups.
My OH pleaded not guilty to the 5 images an a trial is set for October.
The judge finished by telling CPS to have a really good think about if they wanted to continue and asked for us all to attend Crown again in July for a Pre trial hearing.
Unconditional bail was granted, which was a big positive.
So it continues!!
Yesterday my OH attend Crown Court for the 2nd time, 1st time the judge stopped proceedings and agreed the images needed to be viewed independently. We paid for them to be viewed by an ex police inspector who is now a consultant.
He did a fantastic report and confirmed that the images were daft crude jokes and not at all sexual in nature and certainly not sent in any sexual way, they were in various watsapp groups.
For the second time the judge asked CPS if they thought it was really in the public interest to proceed, Cps disagreed with the independent report and said it wasn't an expert opinion.
The judge then asked if the images were indeed indecent then where was the other members of the watsapp groups.
My OH pleaded not guilty to the 5 images an a trial is set for October.
The judge finished by telling CPS to have a really good think about if they wanted to continue and asked for us all to attend Crown again in July for a Pre trial hearing.
Unconditional bail was granted, which was a big positive.
So it continues!!
Post deleted by user
I hope they see sense and this whole nightmare is over for you all prior to a trial. This sounds very much like CPS wanting to avoid losing face, ridiculous! x
Clarke x
I have everything crossed for you both I hope they decide not to proceed with his case xx
I have everything crossed for you both I hope they decide not to proceed with his case xx
This sounds really positive for you. I really hope this nightmare is over for you soon.
Thank you
It's so stressful, CPS said they would recommend a low level community order if he pleaded guilty. But we have agreed with his legal team that we are going to fight them, although probably at a huge cost to us. Our solicitor said he is going to push for the public interest side of things as 2 judges have asked the same question.
It's so stressful, CPS said they would recommend a low level community order if he pleaded guilty. But we have agreed with his legal team that we are going to fight them, although probably at a huge cost to us. Our solicitor said he is going to push for the public interest side of things as 2 judges have asked the same question.
It's really good to see a judge asking the sort of questions many of us on this forum would be asking.
I suspect the CPS reluctance to give up on this is not so much saving face as the implications for others who have been convicted in similar circumstances and the potential for appeals, and the collapse of other cases in the pipeline.
All of us here agree that child sexual abuse is a really bad thing and should rightly be punished, but it's easy to see by reading this forum that there is a wide variety of types of offending and seriousness of offending. Unfortunately , the law and the sentencing does not really reflect those wide variations, it's very black and white, as is the view of the general public towards these offences.
I guess what I am saying is that this particular judge, at least, sees a bit more of the nuance in these crimes and is reasonably questioning whether it's in the public interest for someone who has received some very poor taste material in a WhatsApp to be charged and convicted, and that if it is, and the crime is so bad, then why hasn't everyone else in that WhatsApp group been arrested and charged in the same way? Currently it seems like the CPS and the police want to have it both ways.
I suspect the CPS reluctance to give up on this is not so much saving face as the implications for others who have been convicted in similar circumstances and the potential for appeals, and the collapse of other cases in the pipeline.
All of us here agree that child sexual abuse is a really bad thing and should rightly be punished, but it's easy to see by reading this forum that there is a wide variety of types of offending and seriousness of offending. Unfortunately , the law and the sentencing does not really reflect those wide variations, it's very black and white, as is the view of the general public towards these offences.
I guess what I am saying is that this particular judge, at least, sees a bit more of the nuance in these crimes and is reasonably questioning whether it's in the public interest for someone who has received some very poor taste material in a WhatsApp to be charged and convicted, and that if it is, and the crime is so bad, then why hasn't everyone else in that WhatsApp group been arrested and charged in the same way? Currently it seems like the CPS and the police want to have it both ways.