3 ms·
Prosecuting directly meant there was no outside eyes on a lot of the cases, no questions about if it was actually in the public interest to prosecute, or extern
by hennell 3y ago
Prosecuting directly meant there was no outside eyes on a lot of the cases, no questions about if it was actually in the public interest to prosecute, or external assessment of the evidence before pushing for plea deals.
It's not a foolproof system, but I think most of the cases you'd find about 'dodgy evidence' would also mention a 'overly close relationship between police and prosecutors' - because fully independent prosecutors should be rejecting cases with dodgy evidence. The police can get a bit grumpy with CPS for being quite strict at times - but it holds them to work their next case properly.
The PO clearly managed to convince the CPS in a number of cases, but had they had to do that for all there would have been a lot less cases prosecuted in total, and I think there would have been questions about their system a lot sooner.
It might not have avoided the problem, but it would have been much needed additional oversight into what they were doing.
- scott_w 3y ago> It's not a foolproof system, but I think most of the cases you'd find about 'dodgy evidence' would also mention a 'overly close relationship between police and prosecutors' So the separation of powers isn’t a magic solution to the problem then.