In the news - policeman sacked for rape even though charges not brought

[ISNT]

item here

"The victim complained but the Crown Prosecution Service ruled there was not enough evidence to press charges.

But a police misconduct hearing found the sex was "non-consensual"."

"A CPS spokesman said there was insufficient evidence to prosecute as it had to prove the offence had happened beyond all reasonable doubt.

But the Met's disciplinary hearing findings, based on the information gathered by the IPCC inquiry, are based on the balance of all probabilities, and found the police officer had non-consensual sex with the woman."

This is very interesting.

I am surprised that the police were allowed to sack him on that basis.
It brings up the possibility of whether civil prosecutions (is that what they're called?) where it has to be a balance of probability rather than beyond all reasonable doubt would be more successful with rape than the criminal process.
It brings up questions that would have the "false rape society" people going bananas with rage. We have had posters on here interpreting our conversations as "wanting to change the weight of evidence required in rape cases "etc etc and this is sort of what has happened here (although not in a criminal court). They will see this as the thin end of the wedge.

It's all very interesting.

Thoughts anyone?

Sorry, ISNT, I think I am being thick but you did ask for thoughts (my dim thoughts)

Yes I know and I'm being irritable

What I was getting at is that this bloke has not been prosecuted (bad) but he has suffered consequences, and quite serious ones. Which is better than the nothing that rape victims usually get.

And wondering if there is anything that we can learn from this about getting some kind of justice for rape victims, while we continue to wait and apply pressure for the proper criminal system to pull it's socks up.

I'm probably not explaining this very well.

Like, how great would it be if every sex pest was sacked. Many men would stop doing it pretty sharpish. And not a ludicrous standard of proof in sight.

Not comparing rape with "sex pest", just thinking out loud again.

..so in fact not the thin edge of the wedge, not at all, anymore than employment proceedings relating to other prosecutable crimes have the potential to lead to those being pursued as civil cases.

if that's more the answer you wanted.

Sorry I've been a bit prickly haven't I

People are sacked for financial misconduct, aren't they, even if there is not enough to prosecute.

ISNT I am also perhaps being dim, but I am trying to answer your points. I am not trying to justify the process and I am not sure that there is a "problem" here, I am just trying to explain terminology.

The pont you make in your OP about the civil burden of proof being more effective in the prosecution of sexual offences is probably correct. The problem lies in the sanctions available. This officer does not face several years in prison, he has simply lost his job and his pension. He does not have to sign on to the Sex Offenders' Register. He has got off very lightly.

There is facility at the moment to bring about private prosecutions where criminal investigations have failed. Victims would be put through two ordeals though.
I would like to see dual prosecution maybe -so the victim gives evidence once but the defendant is tried criminally and civilly. (fantasy land maybe, I don't know).

The downside is that a civil prosecution only usually brings about financial penalties. Rapists are no more financially secure than anyone else. Civil remedies cost ££££ too.

But, I don't think he would have been sacked if this had happened off-duty. He was only subject to dsciplinary proceedings because he was starting his tour of duty (technically on duty) and it occured on police premises within the station.

People are sacked for financial misconduct, aren't they, even if there is not enough to prosecute.

exunctly.

and theft, assault, fraud etc...

many jobs require you to be 'a person of good character' in which case an allegation of likely ciminal behaviour is enough to get you dismissed...

nigglewiggle yes but in practice he hasn't got off very lightly because he has lost his job and lost his pension. The alternative was that he suffer no consequences at all.

scurry that's an interesting idea about dual prosecution. Knowing juries though and how keen they are to find a not guilty verdict, they might be even more inclined to say not guilty to teh criminal charges if they thought that the civil ones were going to proceed IYSWIM. It might be counter-productive.

maybe there is something in it to do with things that happen at work though?

niggle, police officers can be sacked for incidents occurring off duty. There is no such thing as a private life for officers.

Yes but niggle it says that they had sex in a train station, not a police station, or am I reading it wrong?

Sorry not "they had sex" but "he had non consensual sex with her"

I agree that it may be counter-productive - let's face juries don't convict now anyway.

Police officers are not subject to all employment law, in that they are not employees as such, more agents of the crown (own rules apply).

I just feel heartened that something happened to this bloke. That he has been punished, even if obviously it's not as harsh as it should be. And I wonder how we can get more of this happening. Many men would think twice if they thought they would lose their job I reckon.

ISNT - just to repost the quote you posted on prev page -

"IPCC commissioner Rachel Cerfontyne said today: ?The actions of this officer will rightly appal the public as they have appalled me. His behaviour was in my view predatory and he exploited the vulnerability of a young woman.

?He removed her from the safety of a social function, where she had friends who could have taken care of her, took her to police premises and had sex with her without her consent. He then sent her out alone, in the middle of the night, with bus fare to get home.

?His conduct would be contemptible from anyone; from a police officer it is nothing short of despicable.? She added that the complainant had ?shown tremendous bravery?."

• I am a bit baffled as to how she can say this when he has not been convicted - surely he could sue her for libel? This just doesn't stack up, does it?

I think it's this idea of a tribunal, that the evidence required is less stringent than for a criminal conviction.

it is peculiar though, isn't it. Presumably she knows what she can and can't say though...

I think she is stating fact but the crucial "having sex without her consent" could be challenged by his team. He would be a very foolish man to challenge this comment publicly though.

It is a train station, but as I understand it, it is a police locker room within the train station, and as such it would be deemed to be "police premises".

Scurry - I take your point about always being on-duty but I tend to think that, if this had not involved police premises and CPS had deemed there was insufficient evidence then that would have been the end of it.

I'm not sure niggle, I know plenty of officers who have been dealt with for incidents off duty. This ranges from drunk and disorderly stuff to manslaughter of 20 years ago.

The CPS (and Police) will chase anything that brings about a detection.

My father clerked an allegation at his work place (not rape) and it went to civil court. His report was partly evidence based and also based "on the balance of probabilities" which the judge made extensive reference to in her summing up and findings. My father said at the time he didn't realise how important that phrase would become.

Scurry - but, are they incidents that have been proved? Presumably D&D's for example are not pursued as a disciplary offence if there is no evidence in the first place.

Yes, proved and they have faced various sanctions from being fined, demotions (recently changed), required to resign, dismissed.

Some of these cases have gone to court and some have not made it but plenty have been disciplined at work whatever the outcome. I know of a couple of officers who have been found guilty of drink driving in court and still been disciplined at work.(likewise some have not had any sanctions at work bizarrely).