Should future employers be warned you were found not guilty in a rape trial??

enkoda said:
Did I say that or are you just putting words in my mouth?
I haven't made any statement as to whether I think this man's trial should be included in an enhanced check, or whether I think he was guilty/not guilty/innocent and from that you've falsely accused me of saying that I want people's lives ruined? WTF?


Ok, maybe I should have said a jury makes no judgement on the question of innocence, only to the question of guilt, i.e. the crime of which they are accused of committing. Think for one second why the phrase is "innocent until proven guilty" and not "innocent until proven innocent".
Courts aren't there to make judgements on innocence, only the claim of guilt is addressed.
The accused isn't there to prove his innocence - it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty (or not).

Here's an example:
You are woken by a burglar whom you confront but he escapes.
You give a description to the police and they arrest a man (it's definitely the burglar), you pick him out, it goes to trial.
He pleads not guilty.
You present your evidence.
The defence presents a whole list of witnesses that claim the accused was with them at the time of the burglary (they are lying).
The testimony from the witnesses causes the jury to have doubts that the accused committed the crime - it's effectively your word against his.
The jury reaches a verdict of not guilty.
Does this mean his is innocent? No, all that has happened is he's been deemed not guilty. But according to you, he is innocent.
Fast forward, and evidence comes to light that proves the witnesses were lying - if we go by your definition of not guilty (i.e. innocent) then the accused cannot be re-tried because, according to you, he has already been proven innocent.
However, a verdict of not guilty means he can be re-tried if new evidence surfaces.

This is why juries only address the issue of guilt, and whether there is enough compelling evidence to reach a verdict of guilty or not guilty.


Beat me to it, and kudos to your brevity.
Click to expand...

The accused is presumed innocent at all times, until they are proven guilty. That’s the point of all the quotes provided. It doesn’t matter what convoluted story you make up. The point is still that not guilty means you go back to being presumed innocent like the rest of the population. It’s not then up to people afterwards to decide on their own that said person is actually guilty “but there’s not enough proof to convict”.

That doesn’t mean that in future the CPS can’t try and prove he’s guilty again.

Claims like there being no smoke without fire are just awful. People make mistakes, including the police and CPS.
 
I'm all for it. The paper work you get back from these checks don't declare you suitable or unsuitable to work with vulnerable people, nor are they a judgement on your suitability*. They're simply a summery of relevant information designed as an aid to those making that decison. Ultimately it's up to the employer to decide whether you're suitable to undertake the role they're employing you for. With this in mind if I knew the check was going to highlight something that might concern my new employer (and I would be aware of it), I wouldn't wait for the paper work to come back. I'd 'get out in front of it' providing them with an explanation of what happened and all the supporting documentation I could. As an innocent person, my up front explanation, corroborated by paperwork and my exoneration in court should be sufficient to put the mind of a prospective employer at ease in the case of a single accusation. Of course repeated accusations may indicate a pattern of behaviour that is unethical if not illegal and may there for make an employer decide you're unsuitable for the role particularly if it is possible to see a pattern or similarities betweenthe said accusations.

* Assuming, like the person featured in the OPs article you've not be specifically banned from working with vulnerable groups by a court, something which only happens following a conviction, not accusation.

Genuine question - if a person is found not guilty of, for example having sex with a minor, can the press call them a paedophile? I'd have thought not, given the not guilty verdict and the presumption of innocence that doing so would be libel.
 
enkoda said:
No, he was found not guilty which isn't the same as innocent - it's possible that the jury may have believed he did it but there wasn't enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did do it.
Click to expand...

Please collect your next ticket to soviet russia or china please.
 
PaulCa said:
Please collect your next ticket to soviet russia or china please.
Click to expand...

enkoda is perfectly valid in what he is saying regarding the law. What he is saying makes complete sense. He is not expressing a personal opinion either way but still gets pathetic dismissive attacks like this.
 
Definitely shouldn’t be included in my opinion. A School would have to be ridiculously desperate to decide to appoint someone with that on their DBS check.

If you’re tried twice and not guilty twice then I can see a reason to consider making reference to it as there’s a pattern emerging.
 
As food for thought, in the UK around 7.5% of reported rapes end in a conviction. Do those criticising @enkoda for pointing out that being found 'not guilty' is not the same as being found 'innocent' really believe that 92.5% of all reported rape cases are really down to the victims making it up? Or is there a likelihood that, in fact, the 'not guilty' verdict could have been down to lack of evidence or some other legal factor?

And if you can accept that a proportion of those 92.5% of cases that don't result in guilty verdicts might actually be rapists, perhaps we should have some backstop system that stops them from working unsupervised with kids.

Like I mentioned earlier, Ian Huntley had past accusations of sexual activity with minors, and more, but was never found guilty of them. Was he really likely to have been innocent?
 
cheesyboy said:
As food for thought, in the UK around 7.5% of reported rapes end in a conviction. Do those criticising @enkoda for pointing out that being found 'not guilty' is not the same as being found 'innocent' really believe that 92.5% of all reported rape cases are really down to the victims making it up? Or is there a likelihood that, in fact, the 'not guilty' verdict could have been down to lack of evidence or some other legal factor?

And if you can accept that a proportion of those 92.5% of cases that don't result in guilty verdicts might actually be rapists, perhaps we should have some backstop system that stops them from working unsupervised with kids.

Like I mentioned earlier, Ian Huntley had past accusations of sexual activity with minors, and more, but was never found guilty of them. Was he really likely to have been innocent?
Click to expand...

hey, why not get rid of courts and put everyone accused in jail then :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
cheesyboy said:
You, then, are happy for unconvicted rapists to work with kids? Why do you hold such a position? What's your skin in that game?
Click to expand...

don't be so pathetic.
The presumption of innocence is the foundation all modern democracies are based on - to suggest we do away with it is immoral, unethical, highly dangerous, moronic, and frankly, evil.
 
aardvark said:
don't be so pathetic.
The presumption of innocence is the foundation all modern democracies are based on - to suggest we do away with it is immoral, unethical, highly dangerous, moronic, and frankly, evil.
Click to expand...
Mate, I was responding in kind to your rather sub-standard post. Read it back, was it really a good debating point?

Regardless, Presumption of innocence is a criminal law principle. What we're dealing with here is a civil matter - that of job offers. In civil matters, both parties need to provide evidence of their position and there is no presumption of anything.

And then there is the 'greater good' issue. Do we want to prevent more Ian Huntleys, possibly at the cost of some innocent people being excluded from a handful of careers, or do we want to allow more Ian Huntleys, but allow some people who've been accused, but not found guilty, of serious crimes to work with kids?
 
Moses said:
Yes he was found not guilty, but people are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Most of the time. You obviously have not proven verdicts in Scotland, for example, which has never felt right to me.
Click to expand...
Yes, his presumption of innocence is evident in the fact that he hasn't been thrown in jail for 15 years without a trial, and the jury has decided he is not guilty of the accusation made by the prosecution. This is why juries don't return a verdict of "innocent" because that isn't the claim being addressed, only if the accused is guilty (or not).

PaulCa said:
Please collect your next ticket to soviet russia or china please.
Click to expand...
Are you also joining the lynch mob and making a judgement on something I haven't said, but assuming I'm guilty of it anyway? Oh, the irony! :D
 
cheesyboy said:
As food for thought, in the UK around 7.5% of reported rapes end in a conviction. Do those criticising @enkoda for pointing out that being found 'not guilty' is not the same as being found 'innocent' really believe that 92.5% of all reported rape cases are really down to the victims making it up? Or is there a likelihood that, in fact, the 'not guilty' verdict could have been down to lack of evidence or some other legal factor?

And if you can accept that a proportion of those 92.5% of cases that don't result in guilty verdicts might actually be rapists, perhaps we should have some backstop system that stops them from working unsupervised with kids.

Like I mentioned earlier, Ian Huntley had past accusations of sexual activity with minors, and more, but was never found guilty of them. Was he really likely to have been innocent?
Click to expand...

A lot of them will be false accusations though, we know that. Especially now with the whole MeToo bandwagon going on. The in thing on social media for attention seekers seems to be to accuse someone of rape. It's got so ridiculous that people are beginning to not care.

It shouldn't be stuck on someone's record if they were not found guilty. Otherwise it's providing a tool for a spiteful ex or whatever to ruin someone's career. They don't even need evidence or a trial, just make accusations. They even have their identity protected.
 
Last edited:
This is a very interesting part of the judgement:

12. In answer to the question “Do you believe the information to be of sufficient quality to pass the test”, she said: “I believe the information is of sufficient quality to pass the required test because: There was sufficient evidence for the CPS to authorise the applicant being charged with Rape, indicating that they believed there to be a realistic prospect of conviction. If the CPS had not believed the allegation, they would not have authorised the charge. This indicates that on the balance of probabilities the allegation was more likely to be true than false. Although the applicant was found not guilty by the jury, the test for criminal conviction is beyond all reasonable doubt, which is higher than that required for CRB disclosure purposes. Therefore the applicant’s acquittal does not prove that he was innocent, or even that the jury Page 7 thought he was innocent, just that he could not be proved guilty beyond all reasonable doubt …” She then reviewed the details of the case at trial, referring for example to the trial judge’s comment on the inconsistencies in the complainant’s account, which she thought could plausibly be attributed to her admitted intoxication.

Ms Wilson concluded this section: “Although the IGU review has raised that the acquittal indicates that the allegation might not be true, the legislation and guidance is clear that allegations that might not be true can be disclosed, as the test required for CRB disclosure purposes is lower than this. Due to the above, I believe that the information is more likely to be true than false and is not lacking in substance, and it is reasonable to believe that the information might be true, and therefore it passes the required test.”

13. In answer to the question “do you consider the information is both reasonable and proportionate to disclose”, she said that it was. It was relatively recent, and although isolated was “very serious as it relates to an alleged rape using force, by a stranger”. She added: “If the applicant repeats this alleged behaviour in the [position applied for], vulnerable people could be caused serious emotional and physical harm.”
Click to expand...
 
cheesyboy said:
I think this all sounds ok, and certainly addresses the "innocent until proven guilty" cries.

We're talking safety of kids here, I think it's a reasonable bar that's been set.
Click to expand...

Won't somebody think of the children :mad::mad::mad:

He's now branded a risk to kids as well is he? Might as well engrave paedo in to his forehead and have done eh?
 
12. In answer to the question “Do you believe the information to be of sufficient quality to pass the test”, she said: “I believe the information is of sufficient quality to pass the required test because: There was sufficient evidence for the CPS to authorise the applicant being charged with Rape, indicating that they believed there to be a realistic prospect of conviction. If the CPS had not believed the allegation, they would not have authorised the charge. This indicates that on the balance of probabilities the allegation was more likely to be true than false. Although the applicant was found not guilty by the jury, the test for criminal conviction is beyond all reasonable doubt, which is higher than that required for CRB disclosure purposes. Therefore the applicant’s acquittal does not prove that he was innocent, or even that the jury Page 7 thought he was innocent, just that he could not be proved guilty beyond all reasonable doubt …” She then reviewed the details of the case at trial, referring for example to the trial judge’s comment on the inconsistencies in the complainant’s account, which she thought could plausibly be attributed to her admitted intoxication.

Ms Wilson concluded this section: “Although the IGU review has raised that the acquittal indicates that the allegation might not be true, the legislation and guidance is clear that allegations that might not be true can be disclosed, as the test required for CRB disclosure purposes is lower than this. Due to the above, I believe that the information is more likely to be true than false and is not lacking in substance, and it is reasonable to believe that the information might be true, and therefore it passes the required test.”

13. In answer to the question “do you consider the information is both reasonable and proportionate to disclose”, she said that it was. It was relatively recent, and although isolated was “very serious as it relates to an alleged rape using force, by a stranger”. She added: “If the applicant repeats this alleged behaviour in the [position applied for], vulnerable people could be caused serious emotional and physical harm.”
Click to expand...

Wow this is orwellian stuff. So if you are charged with an offence, found not guilty, you are still guilty!

I think this is setting a dangerous precedence, and as usual they pick a highly emotional subject to set the example so if you go against it then people will say "So you support suspected rapists then?".

Lets hope none of the people wanting this information on your CRB check don't encounter someone like this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4818874/Jemma-Beale-jailed-10-years.html
 
There are always going to be examples of lying bitches.

There's also the unfortunate statistics that Cheesyboy pointed out earlier. 7.5% of rapes end up with a successful conviction.

Do you seriously believe the other 92.5% are made up by women?
 
Dis86 said:
Won't somebody think of the children :mad::mad::mad:

He's now branded a risk to kids as well is he? Might as well engrave paedo in to his forehead and have done eh?
Click to expand...
Not sure what your angle is here. Are you suggesting people who rape adults are ok to be around kids because, y'know, they only rape adults?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom