Commuter who walked past actress at Waterloo station cleared of 'bizarre' sex assault claim

[LurkingHusband]

www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/commuter-who-walked-past-actress-at-waterloo-station-cleared-of-bizarre-sex-assault-claim/ar-BBpcZ5y

A commuter has been cleared of sexually assaulting a well-known actress after a jury rejected claims the crime could have taken place in a brief half-second contact in a busy railway station.

Mark Pearson, a 51-year-old artist and picture framer, was accused of brushing against the actress, who cannot be named for legal reasons, in a mass of train passengers at London’s Waterloo station.

CCTV footage showed Mr Pearson, who was a complete stranger to the alleged victim, did not break his stride as he walked past the woman, who was heading to a rehearsal.

(contd)

Not really much to say . I'm pleased the CPS will "respect the juries decision". The fact they had to state that implies there have been or will be times when they don't accept the juries decision.

i do hope this case helps the case for the accused not to be named.

poor man

It's something that needs to be considered samcro until a guilty verdict is found.
a case in point

It has increasingly concerned me that the CPS seems to have a very inconsistent approach to who gets charged and who doesn't. The exercise of prosecutorial discretion as to who has to face trial and how strong the evidence is something that seems to me needs to be better defined - not left up to an individual civil servant to decide at their desk according to the latest ill defined 'law enforcement priority'.

I also know that individual police officers have a very wide discretion and pursuing an 'trifling' case is much more likely to happen rather than pursuing a difficult case.

Samcro: why? The accuser is named in all other cases, whatever the outcome.

It has increasingly concerned me that the CPS seems to have a very inconsistent approach to who gets charged

To be honest, it's hard to imagine how a deliberate attempt to set back the treatment of sexual offences by the CPS could have done as much damage as this case ....

One of the problems arising from this whole debacle is that it's given free rein to a whole pile of misogynistic men to berate feminists and feminism when in fact it's feminists who are more outraged by this than anyone. The fact is that women all over the world are being assaulted and raped every hour of every day and mad bitches like this one only serve to undermine the work done by feminists in highlighting this. It may only be one of many charges to be laid at this radge's door but it's not the least of them.

mad bitches like this one

strong words, but clearly you are impassioned.

This is really nothing to do with the original complainant, and everything to do with alleged justice system which - one started - continues onwards like an out of control juggernaut. Crushing all - innocent or not - beneath it's wheels.

Bear in mind its unlikely the acquitted defendant will see any form of compensation, given the governments "not innocent enough to be compensated" changes to the law. Will he still be charged for his board and lodging while in jail ? Like the Guildford 4 ?

The problem is that this case sets a worrying precedent. Basically a woman (or man) can accuse someone of assault even when there is little to no evidence or the evidence is really bad. The accuser can continue to press charges with the knowledge that they will never be legally identified by the press. In this specific case, who knows what her motivation was for doing this, she could literally just have done it out of spite, but she has completely ruined an innocent man's life and got away with it. I feel that in cases where the accused has been found innocent that the accuser should be named in order to protect others in the future.

If it is found she did t maliciously etc she can be prosecuted and I assume at that point she can be named

It would be a knee jerk reaction to name victims where there is a not guilty verdict and a lot of unintended consequences

But BYO remember they aren't 'victims', they are accusers. The one I linked to above was maliciously done to get money - although it does look like that person is going to be investigated.

The accuser can continue to press charges

No. The CPS decide whether to charge, or not, and whether (in the face of advice from the judge) to continue.

she could literally just have done it out of spite,

which the supposed job of the CPS is to prevent

she has completely ruined an innocent man's life and got away with it

is one view. However, she had a lot of help from ... the CPS.

Of course, regardless of the nature of the offence, this is a clear example of how being innocent in the UK in the third millennium is a finely nuanced affair. And not worth very much.l

But not all people in this situation are malicious accusers and are victims. Do we penalise them too?

And our justice system should be doing a better job of making sure spurious claims don't go this far.

That is also true

In the case you linked the accuser should be prosecuted and at that point named

I feel that in cases where the accused has been found innocent that the accuser should be named in order to protect others in the future.

The problem is the accuser may have been acting in all good faith. Not every unsuccessful prosecution for sexual assault/rape means the accused was lying or wrong. At its most basic level it just means the jury - for whatever reason - did not agree beyond reasonable doubt.

Writ large, this whole sorry mess is a good reason why politics and justice do not belong together. The only reason the CPS pursued such a laughable case (in contradiction of it's own guidelines) must be because someone, somewhere decided to. That is too much power to be in the hands of someone unaccountable.

However, when we look at this, and ask "how did this happen", part of the reason is because of us - the public. We said we wanted sexual assaults to be treated more seriously - even in weak cases - and this is what you get.

And our justice system should be doing a better job of making sure spurious claims don't go this far.

Depends very much on what you think the job of the justice system is. I doubt it's much about fairness, or indeed justice.

Most of our justice system grew up as a way of the elite being able to protect what they had from the incursions of those that don't. Hence our labyrinthine property laws (which make up the vast bulk of our law). Every time a politician talks of using the criminal justice system to "send a message" they really mean "enforce mymorality".

Your points are thought provoking and unsettling LurkingHusband.

The fact that the judge left the decision to the jury doesn't vindicate the CPS (contrary to an earlier post). A judge may direct an acquittal if the prosecution offers no evidence in support of an essential part of the charge. For example, if a person is charged with impersonating a policeman, the prosecution must offer evidence that the person represented himself as a policeman and was not a policeman. The prosecution may offer a shedload of evidence for the former, but if there's none for the latter, the jury may be directed to acquit.

This case is a little different because there was evidence. It was just extremely weak. It is the sort of case that the CPS is supposed to screen out, to be honest: the rule is that a prosecution should only be brought if there is a realistic prospect that a properly directed jury would convict. Clearly that wasn't the case here. I know nothing about the CPS but I worry that some junior solicitor at the CPS (perhaps fresh out of law school and having never seen the inside of a courtroom) was told to review the evidence and come to the "right" result.

So do you think the victim is at fault for the ridiculous case, or the CPS? Is everyone cross at her without good reason?

Nb evilcherub:it is not up to a victim to prosecute but the authorities. The police can decide not to prosecute (or indeed to prosecute) against a victim's wishes, as their first responsiblity is to keep the pease and enforce the law.

Likewise the police / CPS can decide to prosecute for a crime that the victim hasn't complained of, as we saw with the rapist Ched Evans. They must make a decision on thebasis of how strong they think the evidence is.

"she has completely ruined an innocent man's life and got away with it. I feel that in cases where the accused has been found innocent that the accuser should be named in order to protect others in the future."

This is a terrible idea. In the Ched Evans case, for example, the other footballer was found not guilty (NB no one is "found innocent") - should the victim be named?

If the complainant (Nb not accuser) is charged with wasting police time or malicious accusations, she will be named in accordance with normal practice on those charges.

That's not quite correct, Toad. A judge may agree that there is no case to answer if evidence has been given in relation to every aspect of the charge, but the judge decides that no jury could reasonably convict on the basis of that evidence - if, for example, a witness contradicts himself or is caught out lying.

The test was set out in R v Galbraith. In that case it was held that such a submission should certainly be allowed when there is no evidence that a crime has been committed by the defendant. There is, however, a second limb to the test for use in cases where there is some evidence before the court, but it is of a tenuous or inconsistent nature. In those circumstances, the Judge has to consider whether the evidence, taken at its highest, is such that a jury properly directed could not properly convict upon it. If the answer is yes, then the case should stop. If not then, broadly speaking, the case should proceed, and any evidence that the defence wish to put forward should be heard.

And I dispute, actually, that his life has been completely ruined. It's very clear cut that there was little evidence. So an unpleasant experience but not life ruining.

As she didn't pick him out of a line up, didn't know him and the police pieced together the CCTV footage and oyster data, how much did her testimony actually weigh in the choice of defendant vs the other evidence gathering?

As for "got away with it" - given half the internet seem to be naming and berating her, how do you figure that?

Do people really think that the case would have been prosecuted if she hadn't been a rich and well known actress?