When someone is charged with something does it mean they're guilty?

[ElTortilla]

A good friend of mine was charged with something serious about 20 years ago. I found this out by goggling his name as he's very well known in his field and I wanted to see some information on his career.

Does being charged mean he was guilty? If so, it could change the friendship forever.

Being charged just means that. Otherwise it has to go to court and be found guilty, or he pleads guilty. However, just being found not guilty doesn't mean they are innocent as it just means there might have been insufficient evidence.

However, on a personal level, it would depend on what crime they were charged with as to whether I continued the friendship, regardless of whether they were found not guilty. Burglary I could ignore but child abuse or rape I could not.

What was the charge?

Being charged does not mean he was guilty or not guilty. It simply means lack or sufficient evidence beyond all reasonable doubt.

Thank you everyone for explaining. Really appreciate it. I love this person with all my heart so it would be awful it he had done the crime.

Nobody here can tell you whether your acquaintance did what he was accused of. The fact that charges were brought doesn't even mean the case made it to trial. In theory they could have been dropped before trial. Even if he was found guilty, unfortunately miscarriages of justice do happen. Isn't there someone who knows him better than you who could fill in the blanks? Do you even have a valid reason for needing to know?

What was the charge, OP?
Why did you feel the need to Google it?

I don't think it's as simple as that. A rapist is a rapist at the moment he rapes someone regardless of whether a court finds him guilty or not. They're innocent in law until proven guilty but that doesn't mean they're actually innocent.

Please read my OP as to why I was googling his name.

The police/CPS charge you because they think they have sufficient evidence to make a conviction. It's the courts and the jury who decide if you are guilty.

It is that simple.
Your interpretation is that we are all guilty of something even if he police never hear a whisper of an accusation.

It doesn’t. But tbh I think it’s naive to think that we don’t all have certain crimes where having been charged with something would make you think twice, even if they were found not guilty…

E.g. if someone was found not guilty of child sex crimes for instance I would find it hard not to wonder.

Because as much as there are situations where innocent people are convicted, so guilty people end up getting away with crimes n the name of not guilty verdicts.

In the eyes of the law he is not guilty, but I think it depends on the crime in terms of how you feel about him.

I think FWIW that arrested is different to charged.

Given the low conviction rate for rape for instance, I wouldn’t take a not guilty verdict to mean that he didn’t do it

Sitting on a jury you would need to be objective and look at the evidence without personal feelings coming into it.

But as someone meeting someone who told me or I found out was charged with a certain crime I certainly think that it would be human to wonder…

It depends what he was charged with? I would assume that at the time there was enough evidence to suggest they did whatever crime they did. the UK court process is so complicated, sometimes the CPS will throw a case out as there is not enough evidence.. doesn't mean they didn't do it, it just means they can't find enough proof that they did.

In answer to your question should you reconsider your friendship, i guess that depends on your own moral compas. If they were charged with rape, and there was not enough evident to support the charge, does it mean they didn't do it?

Not always. The police often charge a suspect so they can then get legal permission to do more intrusive evidence hunting.

Many cases never make it past the charged stage, so tons of people have charges dropped well before there is any pretrial hearing to determine whether enough evidence for a trial.

It really isn’t that simple.

Look at the rape conviction rate. You honestly think that most people charged with and tried for rape are innocent?

It’s not a case of thinking that everyone is guilty of a crime regardless, there is a difference between nobody ever having said anything and actively having been charged with a crime.

That's your imaginary interpretation of what I said and does not reflect what I actually said at all.

Er what? There will often be loads of further enquiries to conduct post charge but police don’t charge people to get permission to get do more intrusive enquiries. Where do people get these ideas?

Not everyone that charged with and tried and found not guilty is innocent because it is a human system with human error.

it’s your assumption that a charge always leads to a trial and a charge alone means high likelihood of guilt that is wrong.

Only a conviction in court means that they are guilty.

It depends on what the charge was but you may be able to find out from the police. If it was domestic violence and you are a partner and you make a request to the police.
If you know the court and date you may be able to find out via research.
But if you know this person and it was a long time ago a. Could you ask them or b. Does it matter? people can change (obviously depends on the charge)

If you found out that he was charged but not found anything after then I'd assume that the charges were dropped or he was found not guilty. The fact you cant even find out if there was a court case suggests the former.

Only a conviction in court means that they’re legally guilty. It doesn’t mean that if they’re not convicted they definitely didn’t do it.

Or do you think that O.J. Simpson was innocent because he was found not guilty?

I think it means that someone responsible for these decisions thought there was possibly enough evidence to officially accuse him of it, rightly or wrongly. I'm not sure what the best way is of seeing if that was tested in court, or if it was dropped.

If he was charged but it went no further means there was not enough evidence to proceed to court or the charges were dropped.

Have you found any information on whether it was ever taken to trial? Then he would either be, legally, found guilty or not guilty (or possibly not proven in Scotland). Some people are found guilty but insist they are innocent, and sometimes friends or family believe them. Quite a lot of people commit crimes they are never found guilty of. Perhaps you need to discuss the circumstances around this charge with your friend?

1 in 10 charged suspects for violent crimes are never prosecuted, because there isn’t enough evidence for a prosecution decision.

The charging decision is not the same as a prosecution decision.

Given the abysmal conviction rates, it is incorrect to say that CPS only charge when they think they will get a conviction as pp have said.

Hi OP, was the online article you found from a local newspaper report or on a police website?

My understanding is that once a charge has been reported by a media outlet then a court case that follows it and the outcome should also be reported. However reporting restrictions etc may mean that doesn't happen. So I don't think you could rule out that it didn't go to trial. I'm not sure whether it's possible to find out from the court. If it was a serious crime it would have gone to the crown court.

If you are in a relationship with this person and it is relevant than you can make a Clare's Law request, if it's something that is a safety issue etc.