- Aug 18, 2012
- 18,702
- 49,297
I respect your view, but as a lawyer (as I think you are?), I disagree.In the current climate, with the polices current mandate of positive charging for certain issues, including any racially aggravated offences, if there was even on shred of inclination or evidence that this was in fact racially aggravated then this guy would be charged with racially aggravated common assault or racially aggravated harassment, both of which are can be tried by indictment. The fact that he’s not being charged with any racially aggravated offence is good enough for me to think he is telling the truth, he is not racist and this act was not racially motivated.
The police will investigate and push the cps to charge on anything that they feel has a reasonable chance of conviction in court, in fact that’s the criteria for charging, and with racially aggravated offences they’ll always investigate on the basis that it was racially aggravated if there is any suspicion of that. Clearly they don’t have any concerns about this being a racist act so if they don’t, nobody in here, the media or anywhere else is entitled to assume this fellow is anything other than a pratt who did something stupid when angry.
He deserves his banning, he’s not a racist.
The test for a decision to prosecute is twofold. First, there must be a "realistic" (not reasonable) chance of conviction, meaning it has to be more likely than not. Second, prosecution must be in the public interest.
Just because the CPS doesn't charge someone with something doesn't mean they didn't commit the act in question. It also doesn't mean they don't "have any concerns" about racial elements. The police and CPS usually have plenty of concerns about anyone who they think about charging or prosecuting.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is the legal test, and not the one that applies in the court of public opinion. Everyone is absolutely entitled to form their own conclusion on this chap's behaviour, irrespective of whether or not he's charged, and what with.