I would react with fury at the CPS for letting it happen and not doing their job properly.
But I cannot recall a case of a child rapist getting off on a technicality so perhaps this negates your 1st statement about loopholes?
I know of a rapist who continually used the same defence every time he was prosecuted.
"My victim enjoyed being tied up and enjoyed violent sex"
I heard about this when a judge tried to order the arrest of the defendant's brother who screamed abuse at the judge and jury. (hell and freezing comes to mind
) This person stated both the judge and jury were all morons and his brother would eventually kill someone!! The judge had refused to allow the prosecution to produce the previous victims, all of which suffered terribly at this animal's hands. To my knowledge there were six of these ladies but I have NO knowledge of how many people this evil person raped.
I do know however that the defendant eventually killed a young student and was finally convicted. I'm sure the defence were pleased with themselves every time they won their case but if it were our wife or daughter that suffered at the hands of this person then would we still be so happy?
In my opinion it is wrong to suggest it is okay for minor traffic offences but not okay for the more serious criminal acts. Tell that to the parents of someone who has been run over by a speeding motorist that should have been disqualified but they used the services of loop hole Harry.
To a degree I agree with everything everyone has said but it is hypocritical to say that the work is sloppy or they should avoid these so called loop holes. I cannot imagine anyone saying second-best should be good enough. I cannot imagine anyone saying, "I can't be bothered to do a better job"
It is a far easier task to find fault with something rather than make out a case. Remember the defence only has to find fault they do not have to say to the prosecution, "Here's our defence, dissect it, but don't tell us the result until the day of the trial"
Everyone in this country is innocent until proved guilty, be that speeding, or be it murder. If there are serious blunders that makes the evidence worthless, then that evidence must be thrown out. BUT......... If there is a slight error in procedures then let that error be exposed, let the culprit be made responsible for the error and make the culprit be accountable. If the proof of guilt remains then why on earth let the guilty party walk? Why throw out the whole charge just because of a
very small, very minor procedural error? Here what the error is, weigh up its significance and act accordingly.
I have no objection to any advocate exploiting the system, that is what they do, that is what they receive large sums of money for, but please do not insult my intelligence by saying it is fair. It would be fair if we all had access to this type of defence, but how can it be fair when this service costs so much money. Should money be allowed to let guilty people walk? Why does this person charge so much if there is a straight forward error with the evidence?
Why do we say it is okay, but then scream like a stuck pig when a police officer walks?? That is crazy; are they not entitled to the same rights as the rest of us? Why is it fair for us to take advantage of any loop holes but not alright for the police when they are charged with an offence?
