Coronation Street actor Michael Le Vell found not guilty

[joebloggs]

Mick, With him having been accused and found not guilty by a jury, what happens to or should happen should his accuser ?

A jury finding does not prove that a person is innocent, but that there was insufficient evidence to prove ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that the accused was guilty. As such, in law, they are presumed to be innocent.

That does not necessarily mean that the accused is innocent, which was shown very clearly in the case of O J Simpson, who was acquitted by the ‘only twelve people in the USA who thought he was not guilty’. He was subsequently found to be responsible for their ‘wrongful deaths’ and damages were awarded in the civil court.

The same situation exists when a person is acquitted on appeal, i.e. that the conviction was unsafe. That quite often happens when information comes to light after the conviction, which if known at the time might have influenced the jury to acquit.

The ‘complainant’ is not necessarily lying when a person is found not found, guilty.

without any phsyical evidence how can a jury find him gulity ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ then?

[bigmarco]

without any phsyical evidence how can a jury find him gulity ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ then?

Spot on Joe. It was one persons word against another there was no forensic evidence and there was no evidence from a computer that would suggest he had any interest in under age sex. It had to be a not guilty.
I understand that the North West CPS initially decided against prosecuting this case but were overruled once the mother complained and the girl suddenly remembered further instances of serious assault.

[johncar54]

Joe. without any phsyical evidence how can a jury find him gulity ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ then?

(At the risk of being abused for being a former Police Officer).

Like everyone else here I do not know what evidence was available in that case. However, the CPS (of whom I have little experience, as I retired just after they were 'invented' and of whom I even less respect) decided, I am sure on advice from a QC, that there was enough evidence upon which a jury could convict and it was for that reason they prosecuted.

That's the ‘official answer'. However I have a gut feeling that they will probably prosecute in similar cases where they have practically no evidence so show they are not biased ! They do the same when a police officer is accused. “Give it a run” as they say. The officer who pushed the paper seller, who then died of a heart attack (natural causes) was a case in point. He was acquitted and probably would not have been prosecuted if he had been anybody but a police officer.

In the case in which the broadcaster pleaded guilty. I suspect there might have been evidence of similar acts using the same MO, by girls who were unconnected with each other. A jury could in such a case might decide that a number of girls would be unable to tell the same story if it wasn’t true. That might mean 'no reasonable doubt'. Just an opinion, based on experience not facts.

[joebloggs]

(At the risk of being abused for being a former Police Officer).

.

i might (wrongly) not agree with your opinion based on years of experience John, but i hope i never abuse anyone on here

thanks again for your valuable opinion