Samuel Armstrong cleared of Rape.

[Londoner11]

twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/943848247310934021

The media narrative was triggered by the Liam Allen case. The media isn't focused on a false rape allegation. They are focused on the failings of a system that came within a hair's breadth of convicting an innocent individual.

And by the way, those failings are bound to work both ways - the lack of proper follow-up risks both false convictions and failed convictions. The system is a mess and needs radical overhaul. Victims are least served by it in its current state because the burden of proof is so high.

Of course the media and others are focusing on false allegations. Hence the demands for anonymity for those accused.

This is being used to further ideological goals when it should be about looking carefully at police procedure and funding.

I'm shocked by those suggesting the standard of proof is lowered - you can't introduce a balance of probabilities standard into criminal cases! Innocent until proven guilty is the bedrock of our justice system. Of course it's very much less than ideal that some rapists go free because the evidence isn't there but you can't start putting people away just because they might have done something** but without the evidence...

What would you suggest to tackle the appalling low number of cases that get to court and the low number of convictions?

I think letting people roam around who are probably a danger to the public is equally fucking stupid, but there we go.

So you'd find it acceptable to be locked away yourself would you, if someone thought you were probably a danger to the public, but had no proof? This is scary stuff...

passthecremeeggs I don't want innocent people jailed but the current system is letting rapists go free. So I'm musing. The best compromise we have at the moment is not having anonymity for the accused, so that if there are other victims their may be collaborative evidence.

I don't think it's acceptable that more isn't done to protect the public from rapists. And that's worth discussing.

If a jury was 100% certain of an accused persons guilt of course they can find them guilty. Balance of probability is a mere 51%

the current system is letting rapists go free

In many cases that's because it's one person's word against another's. I'm not sure what the best way to tackle that would be, but the idea of lowering the burden of proof as a "solution" fills me with horror.

I’m not sure what WTA is talking about. Beyond reasonable doubt indicates a high certainty threshold in the mind of the juror. You can’t be more certain than 100%. So how the heck would a juror say not guilty if they’re 100% sure they are? Makes no sense at all

I’d Be horrified if my dc was accused of rape but no proof of it, but is then labelled a ‘rapist’ based on probability (which could be something as tenuous as ‘found in the same room with the victim). Not the world I want to live in.

What about the Scottish verdict of "not proven" in rape cases tried in England and Wales? Would that at least be less stigmatising to the victim?

Why not allow spectral evidence to be reintroduced?

Or go the whole hog and bring back the ducking-stool!

So how the heck would a juror say not guilty if they’re 100% sure they are?

Because sometimes witness statements aren't enough for "beyond reasonable doubt". Like I say, I've sat on a jury in an assault case and all of us during deliberation agreed that we thought the alleged victim was highly credible and the accused was a big fat liar. But there was no corroborating evidence - no CCTV, no witnesses for before or during incident, no proof of a motive. So we felt the prosecution had not met the reasonable doubt standard and acquitted. The judge had told us about evidential weight in his summing up.

You can’t be 100% sure and not reasonable doubt at the same time. If you have any doubt then you’re not 100%

You can’t be 100% sure and not reasonable doubt at the same time. If you have any doubt then you’re not 100%

Stroudd, you're misunderstanding the system. The prosecution has to PROVE its case beyond all reasonable doubt. You, as juror, could be entirely convinced that an accused was guilty but if the evidential standard had not been achieved and your jury acquitted, the judge could turn it over. This is called either a "judgement of acquittal" or a "judgement notwithstanding".

Apart from how distressing trials can be for victims it can be really harrowing for jurors to have to listen to very graphic evidence be convinced the accused is guilty and then have to acquit after what the judge has said about evidential standard.

Thinking about it it's probably highly unpleasant for judges as well who have to see it day in day out.

Of course you can be less than 100% sure and still beyond reasonable doubt.
A good example is Ian Huntley. I am 100% sure those two girls didn't die by one falling and banging her head and him accidentally smothering the other to stop her screaming? No I'm not. It could have happened. Very very very VERY unlikely but could have happened.
Am I sure beyond all reasonable doubt? Yes of course. He deserves to be in prison.
For rape the level of reasonable doubt seems to be set at the most ridiculous stories, similar to mr Huntleys. It is incredibly frustrating.
I think men should have to at least explain how they think they ascertained consent. Too many men have got off when they admitted themselves they did nothing at all to ensure to woman consented.

Beyond reasonable doubt means rapists can rape with impunity. They can do it, and they will almost certainly get away with it. And they know this. Beyond reasonable doubt, unfunnily enough.

It's not going to change. Rapists, unlike any other criminal, will get away with it, because 'beyond reasonable doubt' works entirely in their favour.

Let's take say...the witchcraft allegation made against Mark Pearson, which was emblazoned across the media just last February.

Pearson was accused of 'rape by digital penetration' in the middle of the concourse of Waterloo Underground Station and the case was taken to Blackfriars Crown Court.

The key problem with the case was both Pearson and the 'victim' were under video surveillance all-the-time and during the moment the alleged offense took place.

Someone took the time to work out how quick Pearson would have to move to commit the offense and beat the video camera from recording him. And that turned out to be over 400,000 miles-per-hour. Now my science discipline is biology, but I reckon I can cope with some basic physics like this.

Strangely-enough, there was no medical evidence - the victim received no injuries, and no forensic evidence - no ripped clothing. Nor were there any witnesses, though there were dozens of members of the public who had sight of the 'victim' and alleged perpetrator.

If Pearson though had committed the offense, then he and his victim would have been obliterated. There would have been a hypersonic shock wave resulting , and very little of him and his victim would be found. In addition Waterloo Underground Station would have been destroyed and likely a crater wide enough to encompass much of the train station would have resulted. Hundreds, if not thousands of commuters would have died or been maimed.

The reason the case is being regarded as a witchcraft allegation is simply because the CPS and Solicitor General have stated that 'evidence was present'. That evidence though wasn't presented to the Crown Court and it is widely understood the 'evidence' was of a nature that couldn't be presented to a modern Court in England Wales. That is, the allegation was that Pearson used witchcraft to defeat physics and perform the offense.

There isn't though a Witchcraft Act in place. Which poses a problem. Hence the prosecution failed.

Pearson was found not guilty. It appears though that in the future, such cases might have other options available. Such as 'guilty on the balance of probability' or 'not proven'?

Cos' when you go down the slope of challenging the basis of the criminal justice system in England and Wales, you have to understand; witches were convicted in the 17th century using the very legal system that we use today. It's a slippery slope, and when you start down it, it's pretty difficult to turn back.

I agree you don’t need to be completely 100% certain to meet the threshold. Don’t understand how you can be 100% and acquit. I’m not sure if I’m being overly pedantic or obtuse but if there is insufficient evidence, or it is not of suffIcient quality than why would you be 100% be certain in the first place? Beyond resonanble doubt is how it sounds. Reasonable. You’re allowed to have minuscule doubt or be 98% sure

stroudd have you ever sat on a jury?

Hmm. Lots of interesting comments. Before i go any further my partner was raped 25+ years ago as a student....long before I knew her. She has moved on but has not got over the experience. He was never caught nor prosecuted to my knowledge. She has rebuilt her life and is amazing....my own view is that rapists should be locked up for life and the number of convictions for rape is lamentable...in the round
However the case discussed, based on the facts made public, is far from certain. They were seen on cctv before the incident holding hands and apparently quite jovial and happy. They went to an office where the alleged incident happened. The lady concerned was then seen in a 'distressed state' later on. She went to the Sun newspaper either before or very soon after the police.....strange.....she may well have been raped BUT the weight of evidence simply does not support a conviction.
An alternative and plausible explanation, based on the information in the public domain might be that she agreed to the liaison. A comment was said by one or other party during or immediately after the liaison that ended in an argument and she left in a distressed state, regretted her initial decision and made an accusation of rape afterwards. That is not rape.
The justice system for about a thousand years has said that to convict someone of a criminal offence the jury have to think that the defendant was guilty "beyond reasonable doubt". This case does not meet that threshold as I see it. Better that 10 guilty persons go free than one innocent be incarcerated for a decade or more I am afraid.
Rapists quite rightly can expect a long custodial sentence. I would not want to live in a society where people were sent to jail for many years "on the balance of probability". The other recent case where the barrister prosecuting the case received late evidence that the plaintiff had texted the alleged perpetrator prior to the alleged incident for "casual sex" on numerous occasions is a case in point. Had the evidence not come to light an innocent man would have been jailed.
Mr Armstrong has been found innocent by a jury and we should all be grateful that the evidence was at least examined in court. In this case the evidence simply did not sustain a conviction.
Many women are raped and their rapist never caught which is immensely frustrating but we should always guard against a system which might jail an innocent man (or woman) for any crime. We should also be very hard on those very VERY few who make manifestly false accusations which do no favour to their alleged assailant or to the many hundreds who are the victim of rape but whose assailant is either never caught or not convicted.

I haven’t but do understand the law. For me it just means I have no doubt / I am absolutely certain of their guilt. If there was insufficient evidence to support this I doubt I could ever say this. You can’t just say you think they did it or like they did but i do not want think you can be 100% certain and have doubt at the same time. It is illogical

where the barrister prosecuting the case received late evidence that the plaintiff had texted the alleged perpetrator prior to the alleged incident for "casual sex" on numerous occasions is a case in point. Had the evidence not come to light an innocent man would have been jailed.
How does the fact that the two people had a hookup/friends with benefits scenario mean he didn't rape her?
I can believe it meant there was reasonable doubt so the jury had to acquit/case didn't get taken forward. But it doesn't mean he is innocent.