This. The number of invitations I’ve received today to support crowdfunded private prosecutions or civil claims against the person involved, solely because he is a member of a particular political party, has been thoroughly depressing.
I have no idea what happened, and whether this is the right or wrong decision by the police. It may be a terrible error. These happen, more often than they should.

But the widespread assumption of guilt because of political affiliation does not say good things about us.
It’s important to remember that there’s a process to be followed. There may be an appeal against the police decision. Civil proceedings may still be pursued. Further information may come to light. But until that is in the public domain, our opinions are largely worthless.
Given the publicity that this investigation has attracted, if this concludes with no further criminal or civil proceedings, the police might give serious thought to publishing (with appropriate sensitive and identifying information removed) the reasons for their decision.
A number of people ask whether the decision was by the police or by the CPS. The news reports appear to suggest it was a police decision not to refer to the CPS, rather than a CPS decision not to charge. Again though, details are unsatisfactorily scarce. bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politi…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with The Secret Barrister

The Secret Barrister Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @BarristerSecret

16 Dec
Some initial observations about this case, and in particular what the Court of Appeal made of the Attorney General’s application to refer these sentences as “unduly lenient”.

Spoiler: it makes uncomfortable reading for the Attorney General.
First, by way of background. I was one of several commentators astonished that the Attorney General, who has no known experience of practising criminal law, decided to personally present this serious case at the Court of Appeal.

It appeared an overtly political decision.
Comments leaked to the press confirmed this was a political decision, to capitalise on a tragic case in the headlines.

A “friend” of the Attorney General told the Express that she was pursuing the case *against* legal advice. She also took a preemptive pop at the judges.
Read 16 tweets
9 Dec
Following the sentencing of Eltiona Skana, the woman who killed 7-year-old Emily Jones, a brief [THREAD] on what the sentence means.

bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan…
Skana pleaded guilty to manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility. The prosecution dropped (“offered no evidence on”) the charge of murder after developments at trial relating to the psychiatric evidence. More detail on that here:
Manslaughter by diminished responsibility, put simply, means that the legal ingredients for murder are present, but that there are serious mental health issues that reduce (although of course don’t extinguish) culpability. So the law provides for this compromise.
Read 24 tweets
4 Dec
Quick [THREAD] on the legal issues in this awful case, in light of various comments floating around.

theboltonnews.co.uk/news/18920798.…
The defendant in this case was charged with murder.

Murder, in English & Welsh law, is where somebody unlawfully (ie not in self-defence or for some other lawful reason) kills another person, intending to kill or cause really serious harm.
The facts are well-known (and available in this link). On the face of it, this looks like murder. Unlawful killing with apparent intention to kill.

However.

There are certain defences that can arise. One such defence is “diminished responsibility”.

theboltonnews.co.uk/news/18920798.…
Read 17 tweets
30 Nov
I want to say a few things about prosecuting.

Unlike the AG, I have appeared in criminal courts prosecuting cases across the spectrum, from murder to speeding.

When prosecuting, we are performing a public service. Our role is to act fairly and with integrity. [THREAD]
We don’t prosecute out of vengeance, or with personal animus towards the accused. We don’t seek a “win” at all costs. We don’t ask for “the maximum sentence”. We don’t appeal to a jury’s worse nature, or use tricks or adverse publicity to secure cheap advantage.
We take fairness seriously. We ensure disclosure - material capable reasonably of assisting the defence or undermining the prosecution - is made. If we believe there’s insufficient evidence & a risk of wrongful conviction, or it’s not in the public interest to prosecute, we say.
Read 8 tweets
30 Nov
Whatever the outcome of this hearing, an Attorney General who is not even qualified to prosecute a magistrates’ court trial should not be personally prosecuting this extremely serious case.

A shameful exercise in politicking for tabloid applause.

bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan…
Before the hearing, the Attorney General leaked to the Daily Express, via an alleged “friend”, her views that, should the judges find against her, it will be because they are “wet liberal judges” who are “soft on criminals”.
This thread explains how such cases should be conducted:
Read 7 tweets
12 Nov
Grimly cynical.

The Attorney General - who has absolutely no experience of criminal law - is so desperate to exploit this tragic case that she is inserting herself into proceedings that she is not competent to conduct.

express.co.uk/news/uk/135735…
Treasury Counsel who usually represent the Attorney General at the Court of Appeal for appeals against “unduly lenient” sentences are appointed from the best and most experienced criminal barristers.

The Attorney General has not to my knowledge prosecuted a magistrates’ trial.
Apparently Ms Braverman believes that the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) needs reminding “how important this issue is to the government”.

And a spoiler of what Ms Braverman thinks about the “wet, liberal judges” of the Court of Appeal.
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!