Not accurate - case dismissed. A not guilty verdict would have come from a jury.
Actually, what happens is that the judge holds that there is no case to answer. The jury is then directed to acquit. So it is a not guilty verdict from a jury.
“The cadet joined the RAF when he was 14”
Proof -reading seems a bit off!
Semantics. It’s the judges direction though
Hardly. Its not a mere technical win.
I look for these wins over jury wins. A judge finding the defendant had no case to answer means that the prosecution’s evidence was inherently weak or contradictory. Not even worth putting before a jury.
Oh I agree! (I never disagreed with the importance or weighting) just the routing to the decision 
Trail now ended, by Judge, as plaintiff events didn’t match other evidence submitted
Overall, an excellent example of why we shouldn’t comment on ongoing trials!
Someone flagged this latest report as inappropriate - I’ve disagreed with that and think it should stay because a) it’s in the public domain anyway (and the article about it being thrown out has also been posted for balance) and b) it’s good to highlight some of the safeguarding issues we face so that we can learn from them.
2 questions after reading this…
-
What happens now to his Cadet career?
will he be allowed back? will he be asked to just call it a day? or something else? -
The second news article, says he appointed the boy as an Aide-de-Camp. can someone please explain to me what the heck that means and is this something that goes on in wings?
I was that wing and had never heard of such a term. I theorised that maybe that was a term used by the press for a more usual role like LLC?
Yes it’s the ignorance of the press.
[Personally identifying information removed. Batfink]
Be careful folks. We shouldn’t be identifying the cadet in question. He’ll have life long anonymity as an alleged victim of sexual offences, even after an aquittal. Identifying him could land you in court.
I wasn’t so much going for ignorance on their part, just them using a term that more people might know. (Although, Aide-de-Camp is hardly a well known term these days!)
I can understand that, but the accused name was splattered over the news, hardly a balance
Many think it is wrong, but that is the law.
As said above people have gone to jail for identifying people.
And this is an anomaly in British law.
I feel that the accused shouldn’t be named until a conviction has been secured and as in this instance where a case is thrown out / acquittal, the accuser should be named, as who is to say they might not do it again with someone else.
I mostly agree with this.
The counter-argument is that naming the accused may encourage other potential victims (along with chancers) to come forward and build a larger case but there has to be a half-way where an accused does not end up effectively hung by the publicity before a credible case (not just a CPS pipe-dream) has been established against them.
As for naming the accuser, if it is established that there was malicious intent then yes, they should be prosecuted and named in turn. It is too easy to sling mud and some of it sticks.
There will still be situation where there is a legitimate case to answer but they cannot scrape together enough good evidence or the testimony is too poor a quality for the case to conclude or even proceed. Too bad. I would rather see a guilty man go free than an innocent man hanged for a crime he didn’t commit.
So because the CPS have made a pigs ear of something we should criminalise the accuser? How 1970’s of you.
Just because a case is thrown out or even when a person is found not guilty that doesn’t immediately make the person who levelled the accusation a liar. If it can be proven that a person behaved maliciously then there are laws in place to deal with it anyway.
As for not naming people until after they are convicted, what are we some 3rd world junta? Our justice system is open to the public, we have a free press, unless we start having trials in secret there is no way around that.
What I would like to see is a reporting restriction which bans the naming of those who have been arrested, they should only be named once charged. That still gives other victims a chance to come forward, but means that people who are just interviewed & discounted don’t get soiled. (No smoke without fire will follow them around forever).