Jimbo1916 wrote: ↑
Sat Jan 06, 2018 6:30 pm
If he was arrested, charged and convicted on a particular case, and according to public opinion has not done enough time, what`s stopping the police arresting and charging him on a different crime. If the victim has to give evidence in court...well that`s how it works in the UK.
A number of things would need to be taken into consideration.
Firstly, would any of the alleged claimants be prepared to give evidence in any prosecution. However, that leads to secondly, is there any evidence in existence that would indicate that there is a likely case to prosecute?
As I said before, I believe that these claimants only came forward subsequent to the end of the original trial. One needs to ask the question of why they only did so after he was found guilty? The whole trial, in fact events leading up to the trial, gained a huge amount of publicity so one would assume the claimants must have known about the cases. Why didn't they come forward at that time so that there claims could be investigated?
But I still return to the fact that the judge handed down an indeterminate sentence, with a minimum term of 8 years before parole could be considered. It was, possibly, derelict of the then Attorney General in not referring the sentence to the Appeal Court to have the minimum term made considerably longer. Or even no minimum, which the ECHR have determined is legal.