egafd.com

... or not ? What do people think ?

Probably worried about the 'Harwood' defence being used, so not much chance of a conviction.

Although CPS is referred to as meaning Criminal Protection Service, or Couldn't Prosecute Satan, so that could be playing a part.

Yeah, those hospital consultants are a bloody menace, always attacking innocent 17 year old youths going about their business. I expect they were playing with hoops and sticks, when this vile thug made a completely unprovoked attack on the poor mites!

Well done CPS, now the least you can do is send the young scamps on a Safari holiday in Kenya so they can get over their ordeal!!wink!

A typical gang of consultant cardiologists planning on wreaking havoc in their local town centre!

[img]http://www.kevinrdshepherd.net/assets/i ... nheads.jpg[/img]

I don't think it is necessarily down to the Crown Prosecution Service not doing a good job. The police dig out the evidence and it is then the CPS's role to decide whether to prosecute or not. In this case, they decided initially to put a charge of manslaughter on the 17 year old.

The press reports,
'"The youth was originally charged with manslaughter on the basis that there was a reasonable suspicion he had committed the offence and there were grounds for believing that the continuing investigation would provide further evidence to support the prosecution."

So it looks like:

1. THe police were not able to provide "further evidence to support the prosecution".

2. THe patholigist produced a new report to back up the boy's claim that the single blow was in self-defence.

3. The CPS decided as a result of 1 and 2 they had next to no chance of getting a conviction so decided not to proceed.

I guess whether you think the lad was responsible or not, isn't the point. Do we really want a system where irrespective of the evidence, we charge a lad with manslaughter because the victim who died was a surgeon and the lad who was accused is a youth?

If, for example, two lads have a punch-up on Friday night, one is a medical student and the other is unemployed. The medical student dies. The unemployed lad claims it was self defence and landed one blow as the pathology report on the surgeon's case states. The evidence backs the unemployed lad's defence. Should we charge him anyway, despite the evidence because the medical student came from a better home, for example?

Bit of a slippery slope.

PS The Harwood case has absolutely nothing in common with this one. Unless the 17 year old was an out of control police officer, recorded on video, carrying out an unprovoked attack on an individual walking away from him with his hands in his pockets.

David, I wasn't making a judgement I was interested to canvass opinion as on the one hand the decision not to proceed could be perceived as a successful outcome and on the other somewhat unsatisfactory.

It's interesting because as the story broke it would have been reported in such a way as to construct events in a particular way. Now, following investigation, it would appear that things weren't as they might have seemed.

I did not wish to suggest you were making a judgment.

This is a tragic case. Without witnesses and much in the way of evidence, the family have no proof what actually happened which must be heartrending for them. The only evidence is a pathologist's report which supports the boy's self defence plea.

So it is certainly not a successful outcome, but difficult to see in the circumstances how there could have been any other.

It's a successful outcome compared to a miscarriage.

Agreed!!!!

I put in the analogy with a weekend night barney because I suspect that some of the tabloids e.g. the Mail are coming out with the "Disgusted of Winchester - why wasn't the lad brought to court. It's a complete travesty" etc etc. line e.g.

"The family and friends of a gifted surgeon killed outside his home reacted furiously yesterday when a teenager charged over his death escaped prosecution" and "A neighbour said: ?It?s terribly upsetting. I can?t begin to imagine how difficult it must be for the family. It?s just typical of our justice system. It?s an absolute disgrace.?