Largest ever miscarriage of justice?

[theprestige]

Isn't the Royal Mail a government entity? And surely they don't have their own courts, right? I would think the Royal Mail would have pressed charges, and government prosecutors would have, well, prosecuted them? By government I mean all parts and divisions of the government; do you just mean Parliament, or what?

Is pressing charges actually a thing?

My understanding is, a lot of crimes, once the accuser have been made and the police have begun their investigation, it's not up to the accuser to decide if the case proceeds.

 

[theprestige]

There was a corrupt prosecutor.

If that's true, then I agree that there was a miscarriage of justice.

 

[Bob001]

Is pressing charges actually a thing?

My understanding is, a lot of crimes, once the accuser have been made and the police have begun their investigation, it's not up to the accuser to decide if the case proceeds.

Aw, c'mon, a case begins when somebody calls the cops and reports a crime. If the victim says "I want him arrested," instead of saying "Let's forget about it," that's pressing charges. After that, the prosecutor decides how far to go. There would have been no prosecution if the Royal Mail hadn't pressed -- initiated -- charges. What do you think it means?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/press charges

 

[theprestige]

On the other hand perjuring prosecution witnesses are one of the commonest causes of miscarriages of justice, that is the conviction of the innocent, because that's what's not supposed to happen.

That seems like an impossible metric to reliably measure.

And no system of justice is perfect. Any time you go to trial, there's always a risk that even if you do everything right, the wrong person may still end up convicted.

Say everybody does their job. The police follow the evidence. The prosecution makes a good case. The defense makes a good case. The judge presides properly. The witnesses testify honestly and in good faith, but some of the witnesses are mistaken about what they witnessed.

Who in this scenario miscarried the justice? Who should have chosen differently, in order to assure a different outcome?

Should the prosecutor have decided not to prosecute, since he couldn't know for sure that the accused was guilty. But upthread people are complaining that it's a miscarriage of justice when the prosecutor chooses not to prosecute.

Should the judge have decided not to hear the case? Should the witness have decided not to testify to facts they believed were true?

 

[theprestige]

Aw, c'mon, a case begins when somebody calls the cops and reports a crime. If the victim says "I want him arrested," instead of saying "Let's forget about it," that's pressing charges. After that, the prosecutor decides how far to go. There would have been no prosecution if the Royal Mail hadn't pressed -- initiated -- charges. What do you think it means?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/press charges

There are crimes for which this doesn't apply. In many US jurisdictions, for example, it's not at the victim's discretion to "press charges" for allegations of domestic violence. Once the police become aware of the allegation, they must continue to investigate, and bring charges if appropriate, regardless of whether the alleged victim wants them to.

 

[Bob001]

There are crimes for which this doesn't apply. In many US jurisdictions, for example, it's not at the victim's discretion to "press charges" for allegations of domestic violence. Once the police become aware of the allegation, they must continue to investigate, and bring charges if appropriate, regardless of whether the alleged victim wants them to.

So in those cases the police press charges. A case starts with somebody claiming that somebody committed a crime. That's pressing charges. What do you think is the point you are trying to make?

 

[Andy_Ross]

What? Who prosecuted them and sent them to prison? Who runs the post office? Presumably they are the entities who were describing what they claimed was massive fraud. What do you mean?

Post Office in the UK is a private company, the govt sold it off years ago.

 

[Bob001]

Post Office in the UK is a private company, the govt sold it off years ago.

I learned that belatedly, and revised my post. But it would still be the government who prosecuted postmasters and sent them to jail.

 

[Darat]

Aw, c'mon, a case begins when somebody calls the cops and reports a crime. If the victim says "I want him arrested," instead of saying "Let's forget about it," that's pressing charges. After that, the prosecutor decides how far to go. There would have been no prosecution if the Royal Mail hadn't pressed -- initiated -- charges. What do you think it means?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/press charges

Don’t know how to make it clearer to you - The Royal Mail was the prosecutor, not the state.

I suggest reading the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prosecution?wprov=sfti1

…snip….

A private prosecution is a criminal proceeding initiated by an individual private citizen or private organisation (such as a prosecution association) instead of by a public prosecutor who represents the state. Private prosecutions are allowed in many jurisdictions under common law, but have become less frequent in modern times as most prosecutions are now handled by professional public prosecutors instead of private individuals who retain (or are themselves) barristers.

…snip…

 

[Darat]

I learned that belatedly, and revised my post. But it would still be the government who prosecuted postmasters and sent them to jail.

No!

 

[Bob001]

Don’t know how to make it clearer to you - The Royal Mail was the prosecutor, not the state.

I suggest reading the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prosecution?wprov=sfti1

My mistake. In the U.S. private entities file civll suits, but there is no such thing as a private criminal prosecution. So in your system private parties can send people to prison? How is that possible? The party who claims to be injured prosecutes the defendant? Where else in the world is this permitted? Are there private courts too? Can you imagine the results if Trump could privately put people in prison? How can this be anything but a formula for fraud and abuse?

ETA: Having read the article, it looks like such proceedings are possible in other countries, but exceptionally rare. And even in the UK, the CPS can take over the prosecution and shut it down if it thinks the public interest requires it.

 

[Andy_Ross]

My mistake. In the U.S. private entities can file civll suits, but there is no such thing as a private criminal prosecution. So in your system private parties can send people to prison? How is that possible? The party who claims to be injured prosecutes the defendant? Where else in the world is this permitted? Are there private courts too? Can you imagine the results if Trump could privately put people in prison? How can this be anything but a formula for fraud and abuse?

It's a historic anomaly from when the Post Office was a govt organisation.

The RSPCA can also prosecute for animal cruelty although lately they have been asking for this power to be removed.

 

[theprestige]

It's a historic anomaly from when the Post Office was a govt organisation.

The RSPCA can also prosecute for animal cruelty although lately they have been asking for this power to be removed.

Does "prosecute" mean something different in this context?

In the context of US criminal trials, the prosecutor is a government employee, who represents the state's interest in the trial. Specifically, they are charged with making the state's case that the accused is guilty and should forfeit some of their rights.

Even when the accuser is itself a government agency, that agency cannot prosecute. Only the actual state prosecutor can do so.

Is it different in the UK? Can private entities really prosecute their own cases in a criminal trial?

 

[smartcooky]

No!

Many of the subpostmasters were prosecuted and jailed as early as the early 2000s.... so if it was the Royal Mail who prosecuted them, and the Royal Mail was a government entity until 2015 when it became privatized, why do you say there was no government involvement in the prosecutions? Is there some kind of real-life retcon going on here?

 

[Elaedith]

Is it different in the UK? Can private entities really prosecute their own cases in a criminal trial?

Yes.

Private prosecutions.

 

[smartcooky]

My mistake. In the U.S. private entities file civll suits, but there is no such thing as a private criminal prosecution. So in your system private parties can send people to prison? How is that possible? The party who claims to be injured prosecutes the defendant? Where else in the world is this permitted? Are there private courts too? Can you imagine the results if Trump could privately put people in prison? How can this be anything but a formula for fraud and abuse?

ETA: Having read the article, it looks like such proceedings are possible in other countries, but exceptionally rare. And even in the UK, the CPS can take over the prosecution and shut it down if it thinks the public interest requires it.

In the US, Federal private prosecutions were a thing until about 40 years ago, but a case before SCOTUS changed that (I don't know the details sorry).

Some states still a allow a private criminal complaint and the court can order an arrest but the state AG still decides if the prosecution will proceed.

 

[theprestige]

Yes.

Private prosecutions.

Thanks! That seems super weird and wrong to me. I'll just chalk it up to cultural differences.

 

[Darat]

It's a historic anomaly from when the Post Office was a govt organisation.
The RSPCA can also prosecute for animal cruelty although lately they have been asking for this power to be removed.

It’s a right we all have.

 

[Darat]

Does "prosecute" mean something different in this context?

In the context of US criminal trials, the prosecutor is a government employee, who represents the state's interest in the trial. Specifically, they are charged with making the state's case that the accused is guilty and should forfeit some of their rights.

Even when the accuser is itself a government agency, that agency cannot prosecute. Only the actual state prosecutor can do so.

Is it different in the UK? Can private entities really prosecute their own cases in a criminal trial?

Yes!

Please read the Wikipedia article!!

ETA: Seen your response please ignore

 

[Darat]

Many of the subpostmasters were prosecuted and jailed as early as the early 2000s.... so if it was the Royal Mail who prosecuted them, and the Royal Mail was a government entity until 2015 when it became privatized, why do you say there was no government involvement in the prosecutions? Is there some kind of real-life retcon going on here?

Because the government didn’t run the Royal Mail.

Sorry but I’m finding this so infuriating- read the article about Private prosecutions - PLEASE!