Justice is NOT a loophole
Today our terribly righteous right wing press has got it’s collective knickers into a twist over the antics of "Cocaine" Kate Moss. For those not in the know, Ms Moss is a model and on again, off again, “what the hell does she see in him” girlfriend of professional drug addict and alleged "musician", Pete Doherty.
Last September photographs appeared in the gutter press, apparently showing Ms Moss snorting a powdery substance at a recording studio in London, the presumption being (hence the oh-so-witty nickname) that this was cocaine.
After months of investigation, the Crown Prosecution Service have announced that they will not be bringing charges against Ms Moss. According to Rene Barclay of the CPS, it was impossible to tell from the footage whether the powdery substance in question was, in fact, cocaine. It could have been ecstasy or amphetamine, and therefore it was impossible to tell whether the substance was Class A or Class B. To successfully bring a prosecution, the CPS must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what class of drug is being abused.
Leaving aside the fact that the CPS could have brought separate charges in the alternative against Ms Moss, in addition to not being able to prove which class of drug this was, they could not even prove that it was a drug, full stop. Ms Moss may have believed she was snorting Columbia’s second finest export (the coffee comes first my friend) but it could have easily been talcum powder. Just because you believe you are acting illegally does not mean you in fact have broken any laws.
This of course has been lamented by the Mail, Express, Standard et al as a "loophole" that has allowed Ms Moss to escape swift and true British justice.
Excuse me? Since when did the presumption of innocence, the very foundation of our criminal justice system, become a loophole? For all our protections, in order to succeed in a prosecution the CPS must not only prove its case, but it must prove it beyond all reasonable doubt. In this instance the CPS could not even reach the requisite level to bring charges against Ms Moss, let alone secure conviction. Our justice system assumes that we are all innocent until proven guilty, and therefore all people must benefit from the presumption of innocence in all cases of criminal prosecution.
If the evidence is not sufficient then the accused must go free. Regardless of who they are, or what they have been accused of. Even (alleged m’lud) drug-addled trollops who got an incredible rub of the green when it turned out nobody was prepared to come forward as a witness.
I personally can’t wait for the next middle-class, two home owning, white collar criminal who gets arrested for blighting the lives of the proles. I assume that the Mail will volte-face from it’s position of “justice is an unfair loophole” and demand that all charges be dropped because in this instance he’s the “right sort of chap” to benefit from what is, at heart, a very basic human right.
Last September photographs appeared in the gutter press, apparently showing Ms Moss snorting a powdery substance at a recording studio in London, the presumption being (hence the oh-so-witty nickname) that this was cocaine.
After months of investigation, the Crown Prosecution Service have announced that they will not be bringing charges against Ms Moss. According to Rene Barclay of the CPS, it was impossible to tell from the footage whether the powdery substance in question was, in fact, cocaine. It could have been ecstasy or amphetamine, and therefore it was impossible to tell whether the substance was Class A or Class B. To successfully bring a prosecution, the CPS must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what class of drug is being abused.
Leaving aside the fact that the CPS could have brought separate charges in the alternative against Ms Moss, in addition to not being able to prove which class of drug this was, they could not even prove that it was a drug, full stop. Ms Moss may have believed she was snorting Columbia’s second finest export (the coffee comes first my friend) but it could have easily been talcum powder. Just because you believe you are acting illegally does not mean you in fact have broken any laws.
This of course has been lamented by the Mail, Express, Standard et al as a "loophole" that has allowed Ms Moss to escape swift and true British justice.
Excuse me? Since when did the presumption of innocence, the very foundation of our criminal justice system, become a loophole? For all our protections, in order to succeed in a prosecution the CPS must not only prove its case, but it must prove it beyond all reasonable doubt. In this instance the CPS could not even reach the requisite level to bring charges against Ms Moss, let alone secure conviction. Our justice system assumes that we are all innocent until proven guilty, and therefore all people must benefit from the presumption of innocence in all cases of criminal prosecution.
If the evidence is not sufficient then the accused must go free. Regardless of who they are, or what they have been accused of. Even (alleged m’lud) drug-addled trollops who got an incredible rub of the green when it turned out nobody was prepared to come forward as a witness.
I personally can’t wait for the next middle-class, two home owning, white collar criminal who gets arrested for blighting the lives of the proles. I assume that the Mail will volte-face from it’s position of “justice is an unfair loophole” and demand that all charges be dropped because in this instance he’s the “right sort of chap” to benefit from what is, at heart, a very basic human right.
posted by Paul at
13:00
|
| 
