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.

No, and this is why people should not be named until they have been found guilty.

People on here will tell you that someone is only charged if there is cast iron evidence, but that is simply not true.

Tell us his name and I’ll find out if he was convicted 😁

To me being charged means the CPS think they have evidence that you comitted an offence.

Is important to remember that people can be convicted of offences they did not carry out

It's a perfectly reasonable question, asked by someone who has never had any reason to know the answer. If OP were to be called for jury service, she would be given full guidance, so your spiteful comment is nonsensical.

Was it a sexual crime?

Not necessarily.

I know of someone who is in prison for a long time. There is no record anywhere that a member of public can find.
Presumably to protect his young dd.

Exactly. The threshold is relatively high

Of course not. This is a very simplified outline of how the process works: Of course there will be variables and other factors affecting things

1. An offence is committed
2. The police investigate and arrest suspect(s) for questioning
3. Suspect(s) are interviewed under caution and hopefully with legal representation present
4. After interview(s) and collection f, the police submit this to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) who will advise on what to charge the suspect(s) with, looking at various factors such as the likelihood of a successful conviction
5. The suspect(s) will be charged by the police usually while they are in custody
6. They may then be kept in police custody and put before the Magistrates court the next morning. All cases start at Mag's court
7. There will then be a trail, the venue, be it mags or Crown will depend on a variety of factors such as the seriousness of the offence, Murder, manslaughter, rape and kidnap for example will always be tried at Crown
8. After hearing the prosecution and the defence and from witnesses there will be a verdict. If the person is found not guilty then that is the end of the matter as far as the justice process is concerned

https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/code-crown-prosecutors

The decision whether to prosecute comes after charging. Prosecutors can start, stop cases at any point prior to prosecution.

”Prosecutors must be satisfied, on an objective assessment of the evidence, that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the person to be charged has committed the offence.”

• not likelihood of a conviction.

“Further evidence can be obtained to provide a realistic prospect of conviction..”

• not likelihood of conviction, likelihood of finding more evidence

On the conviction rate, I was replying to a pp that said rape convictions are poor, and they are. It wasn’t meant to be read as for all crimes.

May be a trial, there is also out of court disposal and prosecutors can decide to stop a case and not prosecute due to new evidence.

Yes, CPS has evidence you may be guilty of an offence.

Not necessarily.

True, I was trying to keep it as simple as possible, didn't include stuff about "bail back" either while the police are looking for more evidence.

it really doesn't, it means that they have been found guilty.

Exactly.
Think the Birmingham 6.

Not really, it means the prosecution feel they have enough evidence to bring a case to court - at court that can then lead to acquittal or conviction. The prosecution has to satisfy the jury or magistrate that they can prove, beyond reasonable doubt the defendant is guilty - many cases result in a not guilty verdict.

Sometimes even a conviction is wrong.
R -vs- Timothy Evans is a classic case, charged, prosecuted, found guilty, hung - only to be found innocent later on

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TSJxbfK6xTM&pp=ygUOY293YXJkcyBqdWRnZXM%3D

The decision to prosecute categorically DOES NOT come after charging. It is the exact same thing. The OP is being caused some anxiety by this situation so it's important to be clear in the advice being given to them.

You're absolutely right that prosecutors can start or stop a case (or charge). However, once the decision to charge has been made by a prosecutor, the prosecution has started. There are also limited situations where the police can make the decision to charge themselves. If they make that decision, then again the prosecution has started.

A charging decision is exactly the same thing as a prosecution decision. It just doesn't preclude any further decisions being made in relation to that charge or case. The charge/case can still be stopped, which I think may be what you're getting at.

No. Until he's convicted he's legally not guilty.

It doesn't mean he didn't actually do it but if there's no conviction, then he's legally innocent.

COULD not WOULD
huge and very important difference
The CPS test is 'a realistic prospect of conviction' not an absolute guarantee, or even "highly likely" prospect.

If they knew how the jury will decide at point of charge they wouldn't need to other with a trial, would they?

Just for information - everyone is innocent until found guilty. You are found guilty after a trial if you plead not guilty or you can plead guilty. Both of these things happen in a court. Until the moment of a person being found guilty or pleading guilty, they are presumed innocent.

Sorry, but this is Absolute Bollocks!

Often people are charged in order to allow time for further investigation but sometimes people are charged with serious crimes on the flimsiest of (circumstantial) evidence.

I only went into law because a good friend was charged with something he didn’t do and his legal aid solicitor did the bare minimum. I spent hours doing the investigative work which was passed onto his barrister and when it finally got to court, he answered ‘not guilty’ to the charges and the prosecution only then decided to drop the case.

If found guilty at court then means is guilty (barring a miscarriage of justice). Having been a juror, it's so heavily weighted towards the defendant. The judge described it to us being 99% sure. All of us were at least 90% sure, but not enough were 99% sure to be able to convict, have to reach a 10 to 2 majority. Walked out of there pretty sure we had just let a child rapist go free, was horrible for all, but especially seeing the child's mums face.
So guilty means guilty, but not guilty doesn't necessarily mean innocent, it means not enough evidence to convict.

Ask him. Though quite how you explain why you were googling him I do not know.

Nobody is getting charged SO that further enquiries can be done!