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.

OP says why she googled his name in her first post. She came across the information that he was charged when she searched his name for a different purpose

Wasn't that change in charging threshold almost exactly 20 years ago now? The incident OP has discovered might fall before or after it.

Besides, we still have the presumption of innocence for the accused.

It means he may have done. Legally that couldn't be proven beyond reasonable doubt but of course in reality he may still have hurt someone. The fact there was enough evidence for him to be taken to court makes it more likely he did.

No.

Obvious they didn't.

No absolutely not. Innocent until proven guilty is the basis of the law in the UK (and most other countries).

This thread shocks me. I may need a lie down, because I'm used to, on MN:

man is accused of something criminal, MNer responses = "He did it! Bastard! All men are predators!"

woman is accused of something criminal, MNer responses = "Aww, wee dear, she must have had a good reason"

Being charged does not mean guilt. It just means it was passed to the CPS. My DP refused a caution, so he was charged, and then it went to court.

If it was in the press though, then it tends to mean that there was an admission of guilt and a subsequent conviction. Or if they pleaded not guilty, then it goes to trial. Being in court does not mean trial with a jury. You start with a plea hearing, and if you plea guilty, then there is no trial and jury... and you have a report done, then a sentence later on. The sentence bit will be what is in the press/online.

In the case of the person you know, he was charged and found guilty (either by his own admission or by trial), so therefore it was made public.

If it was 20yrs ago then surely you know the outcome

He was charged so assume went to court

What excatly did it say under google and his name

If someone is found not guilty at court, that's not the same as being innocent of the act. It means that either the magistrate or the jury didn't think based on the evidence presented to them, the offence was provable beyond all reasonable doubt, the threshold in the criminal court for conviction.

There are certain things not admissable in court, previous allegations etc, witnesses can be unreliable, victims can refuse to provide statements for a multitude of complex and often very understandable reasons.
It's not black and white

A (brief) look at statistics for ALL crimes shows that typically:

1. 80% of cases passed by Police to the CPS result in a charge
2. 11% of cases where someone is charged are dropped before court.
3. Convictions in Crown Courts are 77% and in Magistrates Courts 82%

So of 100 "Crown Court level" cases passed by Police to CPS, 55 end up guilty and 45 not guilty, and of 100 people charged, 68 end up guilty and 32 not guilty.

OP, just so that you're aware, there is no such thing as a silly question, even though some posters might be trying to make you feel stupid for asking this question. If you don't know, you don't know, and you're not going to find out, if you don't ask!

Honestly OP, is this because you are interested in him romantically?.rather than a friend.

This is incorrect. Until the Cliff Richard V BBC case you would have found many suspects names reported at arrest stage. Since the privacy case, in most circumstances the name of a defendant may be reported in the press from charging stage. That does not mean the defendant is necessarily guilty.

If someone is named early in a prosecution then the reporter should follow the case through and report the outcome of any subsequent trial. However in many situations this does not happen because the reporter leaves their job, is on holiday, or is not able to attend court. It is also sometimes incredibly difficult to get information out of court admin if you could not attend the trial.

Several of our largest regional paper groups have incomplete archives online. My own group only goes back four years and even some of that is missing, so it would be quite possible to find a charging decision reported but not a subsequent trial.

Your local court won’t give you a result from 20 years ago. They should, of course, as all court results are a matter of public record but honestly they’re more likely to say they won’t do it.

If you rung my newsdesk I’d check our digital archive for you in a heartbeat. Ring your local paper and see if they’ll do a search for you. It takes seconds. Or if it’s a crime against a woman, and you are close to the person, you could submit a Clare’s Law query to your local police force.

I'm saddened by how much disinfo is on here and various accompanying unpleasantness aimed at the OP.

Being "charged" is not a conviction, it's only a step in the process before attending a court hearing. The court will take a plea from the defendant and an actual legal conviction follows either a guilty plea or being found guilty at trial.

However, OP is asking a far more nuanced question about implied guilt from being charged, and whilst it's not a "legal" conviction, whether being charged constitutes a moral one.

I would say absolutely not. "Somebody must think he did it" is a short hop to a witch hunt, people.

There's no substantive or procedural facts at this point aside from being charged. You have no idea what happened after this point, whether the case was dropped for lack of evidence right through to being aquitted at the end of a trial plus everything inbetween.

Finally, we also don't know what the offence was, which does raise other issues; being charged with low value shoplifting (trial at the Magistrates' court, no jury) is obviously different from being charged with rape and facing a jury trial at Crown court, an offence with well-established low charge to conviction rates. I apologise if this has been dealt with at another point in the thread.

He's a friend. I'd be one back at this point.

Even being convicted in court does not mean the individual is factually guilty, just as being acquitted does not mean they are factually innocent.

No, not at all! He's 20+ years older than me for a start. He's a great friend though and I love him dearly as a friend.

Thank you. I certainly will be a good friend to him as he has been to me over the years.

Thank you for being so kind with your words when others arent. Its very much appreciated.

Is the crime of a form that could be checked up on via other means e.g. Claire's Law or checking the child protection register etc?

Things like rape, child abuse, DV etc rarely get convictions but they is often a lot of evidence on file.

My ex appears lovely to his friends I'm sure. He has no DV conviction as I didn't press charges but a Claire's law check would show up all manner of things that would be offputting.

Not been proven guilty but with many crimes it is hard to have the evidence to be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Rape, sexual abuse and domestic abuse can be very difficult to prove.

Police thought there was enough evidence to go to trial so charged him. Cps may have dropped charges if they felt they evidence was insufficient to make conviction likely. Or he may have gone to trial. So not going to trial doesn't necessarily mean he was innocent...

They can indeed but the op hasn't said this man was charged with anything like that. The fact that she feels it could alter her opinion of him, and colour the friendship if he was actually found guilty, does lead one to think it must be more than drunk driving or petty fraud but kudos to her for not saying.

Op, you really do need to ask him about this or else let it go.

Don't feel hurt. There are some pretty rude peope in this group. You are askng a very reasobable question. At the same time, whatever ensues - the person may have been found innocent or may have been found guilty and punished. If it is the latter, it is consideredthat you have paid your debt to society after you've paid fines or served time so please don't judge too quickly.