Programmer Faces Terror Charge:

[Dave Bird]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <3D918AC8.9302.D04A5@localhost>, David Hansen writes:
>On 24 Sep 2002 at 18:55, Dave Bird wrote:
>> a
>>  specific national official does not have to give permission.
>
>Is there not a trickle of cases where someone has tried to bring a 
>case against a defendant, only to have these jokers "take it over" 
>with the intention, subsequently carried out, of giving up on the 
>case. In that case surely some bod does have to give permission,

 I should, perhaps, have given a more complete answer.
 For most crimes, "anyone" can prosecute, though usually it
 is the local prosecutor's office which does so.
 Ordinary people can launch a private prosecution. In this case,
 however, the local prosecutor has power to interfere and take
 over the case --- often in order to drop it. 

 In some special crimes, a specified NATIONAL MINISTER has
 to GIVE PERMISSION before a case can even be brought.
 They are not the same.  In the first case, it is the local prosecutor 
 who handles things not a national minister and, in that case, he 
 he cannot forbid a case from starting, though he can later intervene 
 to stop a running case.  

 There is a difference in degree between the two --- especially
 as regards press reaction.  In the second case it may be
 "can we bring a case for discriminatory conduct", "sorry, 
 the minister says No", and it is a non-event.  In the first
 case it may be that a private prosecution starts and the press
 gets wind, then there is a big stink if it is unfairly stopped
 (which may deter the prosecutor from attempting to do so).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In article <3D918BD2.70906@234.cx>, Pete Chown <1@234.cx> writes
>This is true, but it was Parliament's intention that they be given both the 
>power to stop cases and the power to take them over.  It wasn't that the A-G and 
>DPP were given the power to take cases over, and they subsequently misused this 
>power to stop cases that they disagreed with.
>
 I suspect that the power is mis-used a lot to stop cases
 which they dislike.

>If there was no power to take cases over, there would be a problem with double 
>jeopardy.  Someone could arrange to be prosecuted by a friend, who would then 
>deliberately withhold evidence from the jury.  The unavoidable acquittal would 
>make it impossible for the CPS to bring a case subsequently. 

 This would be answered by a SPECIFIC power that "the attorney
 general (or whoever) may order that a private prosecution 
 be suspended, so that the police may investigate and the 
 crown prosecutor bring his own action taking precedence over it,
 for a period of no more than eighteen months."
>
>Also, I think the power is there to protect defendants.  A vexatious civil case 
>would be annoying enough, but a vexatious criminal case could get you a 
>substantial prison sentence if you lose.

 Wrong. (1) The courts have extensive powers to dismiss poor cases.
 (2) a criminal trial is up against a higher standard of proof.
 (3) even if a guilty verdict is found then the judge,
 not the prosecutor, has entire control of sentencing.  Thus he 
 may take a similar view as he sometimes does with the ordinary
 prosecutor that, while the defendant is in principle guilty,
 the appropriate action is merely an absolute [or conditional]
 discharge.  

 

- -- 
   ^-^-^-@@-^-;-^   http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/
        (..)__u     news:alt.smoking.mooses

       happy as a clam at high tide -. <_" .-._.-.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1

iQA/AwUBPZJkYHpGxv7MBb4WEQLQ6gCgsZWrMdQ00+RkL0Pc8JWPOLmcR/sAnjb5
1pqpHeYqyDXa3WVBzU2yc5Zu
=SZTl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----