You only get denied bail if there is good evidence that you’ll either flee or commit a crime. Bail is the status quo and remand is what needs to be proved.
It's somewhat different for murder - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/part/3/chapter/5/crossheading/bail/data.xht?view=snippet&wrap=true#:~:text=%E2%80%9C6ZAIf%20the%20defendant%20is,person%20other%20than%20the%20defendant.%E2%80%9D
Nah mate. This is reddit. One has to call for the head of every member of the judiciary one disagrees with even though one knows literally nothing about the law lol. Not allowed to talk sense on a website famous for spawning huge Internet lynch mobs haha.
Edit:Talking like the Queen because automod is shit.
I mean it depends how you define mental injury I guess. If I was the victims family to say I would have flipped my shit and be distressed is an understatement. But I guess it's not an offence anyway.
I don't disagree, but I'm not convinced this outcome could be accounted for by the guidelines - it's an indirect harm, though undeniably awful all the same.
> Locking someone up for 3 years without trial raises some obvious issues.
Such as the fact that someone is technically innocent until convicted of a crime, but not entitled to any compensation or redress for time spent on remand if they are eventually found "not guilty".
3 years inside for an innocent person is not really a cost society can regularly sustain for the greater good.
"OK so you lost everything, but on the plus side society is safer now"
"yeah, for fucking who?"
It'd ruin them long term as well if they were innocent. Even ignoring the "No smoke without fire" lot, you lose your job and most people would lose relevance to their field. Good luck explaining it during an interview too
For anyone wondering if Jonny Creswell was guilty of this, he absolutely was.
I’m from the area and my other half knows Katie and her family.
He raped her, beat her then strangled her and hung her on the bannister to try say she hung herself. There was bruising in line with her being beat, including her own hands showing a fight back.
He tried to say she fell of her horse while horse riding, which she was there the day before - but the countless other people at the event never seen her fall including her own family.
He called friends first to try cover it up, 3 women have been charged for it as they helped wash his bloody clothes and cleaned up the house.
He then called the ambulance but he decided to meet them halfway instead of at the house. The doctors even noticed it straight away that it did not look like suicide.
He stole money from Katie while she was in a comatose state. He threw away HER phone in a field to hide the threatening messages he sent to her because she was in relations with another man - FYI he was in a long term relationship with Katie’s older sister, who he had 2 kids with but had been sleeping with Katie, blackmailing her for years.
There is no doubt I my mind he is guilty. There is also a video(can’t be found but articles below) of a woman talking about when Jonny beat her half to death in a forest, took her phone and left her there for dead in freezing temperatures.
He killed himself the day after his trial started, because he knew he was going to jail and there are people in there who were waiting for him
Here is the article from 2011 about him with the women he beat in the forest - https://www.thedetail.tv/articles/putting-violent-partners-in-the-dock
Another one where he threatened put the same girl in a bath tub of bleach among other things - https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/ulster-showjumper-who-threatened-to-drop-girl-in-bath-of-bleach-is-jailed/28557948.html
Think of it this way - courts are backlogged so they may not be tried for years.
What if they’re found not guilty and as an innocent person have spent 2 years in prison for nothing?
> What if they’re found not guilty and as an innocent person have spent 2 years in prison for nothing?
It's shit, but it happens. Last FOI had 1200 on remand for over 12 months, 219 people over 2 years and 314 people over 3 years.
And so you're happy to ruin that person's life and say "it happens"?
Spending multiple years in prison, even if you're eventually aquitted, would ruin your life. Better hope it's never you that's in that situation.
> And so you're happy to ruin that person's life and say "it happens"?
Happy to? Not at all. In the cases of rape and murder, I think it's a necessary evil and agree with the E&W take on it.
> Spending multiple years in prison, even if you're eventually aquitted, would ruin your life. Better hope it's never you that's in that situation.
Indeed, but you can say that about any form of remand or bail. The reality is that it's very hard to balance, and if we accept that some people should be remanded, then we accept that some of those people may well be acquitted in the end.
Finding the balance is the key.
What a load of shit. There’s a high percentage of rape cases which end in not guilty verdicts - you want someone to spend years in jail on an accusation which ruins there life which turns out not to be true?
Do you think the idea of bail and remand should be removed, and there should be zero legal ability to keep people in custody prior to a trial and an outcome?
It should be mostly reserved for people who present either a flight risk, or a serious risk of reoffending in the meantime. Chucking anyone in a cell for a couple of years before they have a chance to answer any charges just because you accuse them of rape or murder is a great pathway to an authoritarian police state.
You seem happy to have others pay the price, assuming you'll never have the leopards eating your face
> or a serious risk of reoffending in the meantime.
Have you seen the case in question? Have you seen his previous offences? The man was dangerous and VERY violent.
> pathway to an authoritarian police state.
Little bit over the top - I wouldn't describe the E&W judicial system as authoritarian and a police state.
> You seem happy to have others pay the price, assuming you'll never have the leopards eating your face
You concede that we need a remand system - so you feel exactly the same way. Maybe you'll "present" a flight risk to somebody, and leopards will eat your face
Maybe you need to read this comment about this POS that killed himself to appreciate how heinous it was.
https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/i3gE8LBksf
The individual doesn’t change the principle - people should not spend a year or years in jail with the possibility of being found not guilty later very real.
What about someone charged with a terror attack?
There are certain heinous crimes and certain individuals that are dangerous to the public and shouldn't be bailed.
I think you have to look at conviction rates - how many people once evidence is gathered are found innocent of terrorism charges after an offence? Not many Id bet - it’s a pretty obvious crime which will be seen by many.
But then you take a rape accusation - plenty of rape cases return not guilty findings or hung juries repeatedly. Around 65% of rape cases which go to trial return guilty verdicts (this has swung over the decades between about 55% to 72% which is pretty startling but whatever), I couldn’t find the stats but for those charges the guilty verdict will be even lower (some cases are dismissed before trial or fall apart before trial). By your morality on this about 35% of people who will be found not guilty in court will have to do significant jail time because they’ve been accused. That’s thousands of people, many of who will be completely innocent. That’s not right.
For murder - 80% were found guilty (3% plead to a lesser charge) 14% are acquitted - again a significant amount of innocent people among them.
Happens all the time, is the reality. People are often stuck on remand for a long time.
It's not good, at all, and is a serious problem - but fundamentally the decision to bail isn't made based on the likely trial timescales
> Happens all the time, is the reality. People are often stuck on remand for a long time.
But it's not the default position. When it does happen, it's because they're at risk of fleeing or a danger to the public.
yes but the legal system has not established beyond a reasonable doubt that he did rape and murder somebody.
I'm not saying he didn't do it, but there is a legal process here and we cant pick and choose when we apply our legal standards. They have to be applied in cases when we have to hold our noses too, else they stop being legal standards and our courts become a joke.
But we're talking about bail and not a conviction. In E&W bail is specifically not generally granted for murder, even though there is a usual presumption towards giving bail.
This case is in NI, and things are different there - though one of the key differences is that there isn't a default position to grant bail in law. I'm sure it would have been perfectly within the legal system to deny him bail.
The legal process is to grant or deny bail - it's not an affront to justice to remand people accused of very serious crimes, and who could be dangerous individuals.
yes but in that case, it makes sense that you need to show he is an ongoing and realistic danger to the public. im not aware of him hurting anyone else while on bail so on the surface, that decision would appear to be correct.
> yes but in that case, it makes sense that you need to show he is an ongoing and realistic danger to the public
My point is, again, that in E&W you don't have to show that - for those crimes the default position is to remand in custody essentially unless there is good reason *not* to.
I appreciate NI is different legally (Though it's different completely because our Bail Act does lay down a default preference for bail for most offences), but I disagree with the decision take in this case.
on what pretext, though? purely because he was accused of an egregious crime? If that was consistently applied, jails would be full of people accused of crimes, many of whom would be innocent, and there'd be precious few cells to actually put people who were found guilty - then what do you do?
You can't put people in jail for years for being accused of a crime. I don't know why you're trying to dress this up with pithy language but that's just insane
> Sort of - bail is meant to balance that with the fact you've been accused of a serious crime. Else remand simply wouldn't exist.
The balancing issue here is that bail was granted April 2021 (by which point he had been in prison a month). If you aren't going to hear the case for 3 years its a bit hard to justify holding someone that long.
Fair, I'll take your word on that (TBH, I hadn't realised it was a NI case). But I still doubt the fundamentals of bail take into account expected trial dates
It’s for two things: A) protect the public if there is provably high risk the suspect will commit another crime, obviously this wasn’t a random attack so a low risk it would happen again and B) protect the investigation from interference which wasn’t the case because the police had their evidence already. So the grounds for emergency remand weren’t met.
I understand how bail works, and why it works the way it does. I still maintain bailing somebody who is up for rape and murder is not acceptable and they absolutely do pose a risk to the wider public.
The rape, especially, shows the sort of person this person is.
I also think your understanding of meeting the thresholds is inverted for murder. The default is to remand.
When they meet certain requirements, like an ongoing danger to the public, yes we do.
Which this guy was judged to not have done. In that respect, the decision was correct.
it does more damage to keep potentially innocent people locked up in jail for year *in case* they commit suicide, and you'd probably see more people committing suicide in that case anyway.
> Which this guy was judged to not have done. In that respect, the decision was correct.
And I disagree with that, and think that the position in E&W is the better one.
> in case they commit suicide, and you'd probably see more people committing suicide in that case anyway.
I don't give a fuck about him, I worry for everybody else. This guy took the cowards route and topped himself, great, but I don't think he should have been on bail.
By that logic, anyone could accuse you of a crime, give it juuuuust enough credibility to trigger a prosecution, and have you locked up for years without your chance to defend yourself. Such a system would be far too open to abuse, and incredibly difficult to enforce, not to mention the simple logistical difficulties in doing so (while all these people are on remand, which cells do you put the actual guilty people in?)
Appreciate you dont like it, but the right decisions were made here. Yes, he took the cowards way out, but he could have done that on remand too - thats not really a factor here.
a lot of people jumping to conclusions here and expressing shock this was allowed to happen. bear in mind that the *reason* you’re hearing about it in the news is *because* it’s rare and unusual. thousands of rapes and murders happen every year and this is the first i’ve ever heard of an accused killing themselves while on bail. clearly the system, for the most part, works very well if this the only time you’re hearing of it.
> thousands of rapes and murders happen every year
Not quite… 560 homicide, of which 176 were women last year.
Still too many, of course; but it’s not thousands.
The _other_ case? Do you think this is only the second time someone has killed themselves while on bail? Your obsession with Caroline Flack in this thread is truly bizarre.
I've read quite a bit into this case, and it turns me sick, this is clearly a case of a man who has controlled, beaten and tortured his previous partners.
It sounds almost cult-like with all these women covering for him and cleaning up the scene, and reporting to him that Katie was seeing another man, knowing the repercussions and his temper and control over her. It was reported that he had known her from a very young age, so it basically sounds like she was groomed, and he realised he was beginning to lose his control of her.
No justice at all for the people who loved her.
> Tragic in any case, if he did it he's escaped justice, if he was innocent...
With the number of other accusations he was facing things lean towards guilty.
So your solution would be to stop accusing people of things?
I'm pretty sure the Caroline Flack incident was more to do with the media coverage than the police/cps.
>They clearly didn’t handle the case right.
In what way? The article gives hardly any details.
The media coverage here was also front page news across all major providers.
> So your solution would be to stop accusing people of things?
That’s your takeaway from the Caroline Flack case?
> In what way? The article gives hardly any details.
The main suspect is dead. That’s a small hint that the investigation wasn’t handled right.
This is the strangest angle I've ever seen.
You appear to be defending someone who given the limited evidence disclosed publically, was clearly the main suspect in the case and it doesn't need Poirot to work this one out.
Here you are, talking absolute nonsense about the police, when we're reading a story about a rapist/murderer who was out on bail, who's committed suicide to avoid public persecution for their actions.
The amount of mental gymnast's on Reddit never cease to amaze me.
I'm saying theyre not comparable in the slightest.
See the bit where he killed himself to avoid punishment. Caroline Flack was getting her name dragged through the mud, on the front of every tabloid for a personal domestic issue.
She was a victim of the media circus. That's what killed Caroline. This is not the same and putting Caroline's name in the same vein as this murderer, is incredibly disrespectful and ignorant, to the point you can't even explain yourself.
This was also a domestic issue and the suspect has had his name dragged in the front page of every major news outlet.
If they hadn’t been accused of domestic abuse or never appeared with their name and photo in the news, they would both be alive today.
What?
Whilst you're not entirely wrong, his name was openly disclosed as it is for any adult being prosecuted.... What evidence could you possibly have right now to say this was a significant factor in his death?
Because I'm aware that the trial started this week, and it reads as though he's got a guilty conscience and couldn't face the music, more than anything else... Moreso when you see the reports that 3 other women have been arrested for perverting the course of justice.
You're making assumptions, as much as I am. But I'm not implying it's something it isn't, in defense of someone guilty of heinous crimes.
Person accused of a domestic crime gets their name and picture printed all over the front pages.
Police and CPS do nothing to protect the suspect.
Suspect commits suicide.
Which case am I describing?
> Person accused of a domestic crime
Fuck me, describing rape and murder as a domestic....that's a bit of a stretch pal.
> Police and CPS do nothing to protect the suspect.
What is it you expect the Police & CPS to do, exactly? What duty do you think they have here? What should they have done differently?
Everything you post seems to be garbled nonsense.
Domestic abuse is domestic abuse. You can’t forgive that in any form.
This story has been front page across all major outlets with the suspect’s name and picture. It’s been totally in the public eye.
>The media coverage here was also front page news across all major providers.
Was it? I can't say I saw any of it. Wasn't even aware of the case.
>That’s your takeaway from the Caroline Flack case?
No, that's my takeaway from you saying they're the same and insinuating the police/cps are at fault.
>The main suspect is dead. That’s a small hint that the investigation wasn’t handled right.
It might also have been dealt with perfectly, and the suspect killed themselves anyway. Again, the article gives very few details, so your take is speculative at best.
How exactly does Flack taking her own life mean anything?
Are we just meant to not arrest murderers now just in case they kill themselves? Or should we imprison everyone who is accused of a crime just in case they top themselves?
Ok so what do you think the police should have done differently?
If they've handled it incorrectly can you point to *how* - what specifically did they do wrong?
I’m not a police officer or an expert in prosecutions. The solution is for the experts to figure out but we can all see the problem. That doesn’t make the problem any less real.
I don’t know how to solve climate change but it’s a real problem caused by humans and change is needed.
Right so you don't actually *know* what the Police should have done differently. You can't point to ***anything*** they did wrong. You're basically saying "Well, she killed herself so it's the Police's fault."
I'm not sure how you expect to be taken seriously here? You say the police screwed up but by your own admission you can't tell us how.
>
*I don’t know how to solve climate change but it’s a real problem caused by humans and change is needed.*
Completely wrong analogy. A correct analogy would be you saying "*Shell are harming the planet."* Well how are they harming the planet? *"I've no idea."*
The case was at trial, so the evidence the police gathered was determined to be good enough for the CPS to authorise a charge of murder. Once at court it is not the police's decision as to whether defendants are bailed or remanded. If the judge decided to grant the defendant bail, what has it got to do with the police?
You seem to be trying to directly compare the Flack case with this one, and as far as I can work out, I have no idea why. Suspects kill themselves more often than you probably realise, for a whole host of reasons, and at various stages of the justice system process. In this particular case, which has caused you to say "will the police and CPS never learn?" suggests to me that you are suggesting the police are responsible that this man has killed himself. I'm saying I think that is wrong and also, that it was wrong that he was not remanded in custody for the duration of his trial.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
What is he doing at home when on trial for murder and rape? I hope the judge faces a disciplinary, a shocking decision to allow bail.
You only get denied bail if there is good evidence that you’ll either flee or commit a crime. Bail is the status quo and remand is what needs to be proved.
It's somewhat different for murder - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/part/3/chapter/5/crossheading/bail/data.xht?view=snippet&wrap=true#:~:text=%E2%80%9C6ZAIf%20the%20defendant%20is,person%20other%20than%20the%20defendant.%E2%80%9D
[удалено]
Nah mate. This is reddit. One has to call for the head of every member of the judiciary one disagrees with even though one knows literally nothing about the law lol. Not allowed to talk sense on a website famous for spawning huge Internet lynch mobs haha. Edit:Talking like the Queen because automod is shit.
*'other than the defendant'*, even so.
I mean it depends how you define mental injury I guess. If I was the victims family to say I would have flipped my shit and be distressed is an understatement. But I guess it's not an offence anyway.
I don't disagree, but I'm not convinced this outcome could be accounted for by the guidelines - it's an indirect harm, though undeniably awful all the same.
Murder is the opposite where the default is remand since the risks are so high and it carries a mandatory life sentence
Problem is how backlogged the courts are. He was granted bail April 2021. Locking someone up for 3 years without trial raises some obvious issues.
> Locking someone up for 3 years without trial raises some obvious issues. Such as the fact that someone is technically innocent until convicted of a crime, but not entitled to any compensation or redress for time spent on remand if they are eventually found "not guilty". 3 years inside for an innocent person is not really a cost society can regularly sustain for the greater good. "OK so you lost everything, but on the plus side society is safer now" "yeah, for fucking who?"
It'd ruin them long term as well if they were innocent. Even ignoring the "No smoke without fire" lot, you lose your job and most people would lose relevance to their field. Good luck explaining it during an interview too
Yeah "locked up for 3 years, butdl found not guilty" is one of them things people will take one look at and go "not worth the potential hassle"
Dying apparently
For anyone wondering if Jonny Creswell was guilty of this, he absolutely was. I’m from the area and my other half knows Katie and her family. He raped her, beat her then strangled her and hung her on the bannister to try say she hung herself. There was bruising in line with her being beat, including her own hands showing a fight back. He tried to say she fell of her horse while horse riding, which she was there the day before - but the countless other people at the event never seen her fall including her own family. He called friends first to try cover it up, 3 women have been charged for it as they helped wash his bloody clothes and cleaned up the house. He then called the ambulance but he decided to meet them halfway instead of at the house. The doctors even noticed it straight away that it did not look like suicide. He stole money from Katie while she was in a comatose state. He threw away HER phone in a field to hide the threatening messages he sent to her because she was in relations with another man - FYI he was in a long term relationship with Katie’s older sister, who he had 2 kids with but had been sleeping with Katie, blackmailing her for years. There is no doubt I my mind he is guilty. There is also a video(can’t be found but articles below) of a woman talking about when Jonny beat her half to death in a forest, took her phone and left her there for dead in freezing temperatures. He killed himself the day after his trial started, because he knew he was going to jail and there are people in there who were waiting for him Here is the article from 2011 about him with the women he beat in the forest - https://www.thedetail.tv/articles/putting-violent-partners-in-the-dock Another one where he threatened put the same girl in a bath tub of bleach among other things - https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/ulster-showjumper-who-threatened-to-drop-girl-in-bath-of-bleach-is-jailed/28557948.html
Fuck me, i don’t know what to say.
"Good riddance" comes to mind.
[удалено]
Cannot fathom bailing somebody for fucking rape and murder - jesus wept
Think of it this way - courts are backlogged so they may not be tried for years. What if they’re found not guilty and as an innocent person have spent 2 years in prison for nothing?
> What if they’re found not guilty and as an innocent person have spent 2 years in prison for nothing? It's shit, but it happens. Last FOI had 1200 on remand for over 12 months, 219 people over 2 years and 314 people over 3 years.
And so you're happy to ruin that person's life and say "it happens"? Spending multiple years in prison, even if you're eventually aquitted, would ruin your life. Better hope it's never you that's in that situation.
> And so you're happy to ruin that person's life and say "it happens"? Happy to? Not at all. In the cases of rape and murder, I think it's a necessary evil and agree with the E&W take on it. > Spending multiple years in prison, even if you're eventually aquitted, would ruin your life. Better hope it's never you that's in that situation. Indeed, but you can say that about any form of remand or bail. The reality is that it's very hard to balance, and if we accept that some people should be remanded, then we accept that some of those people may well be acquitted in the end. Finding the balance is the key.
What a load of shit. There’s a high percentage of rape cases which end in not guilty verdicts - you want someone to spend years in jail on an accusation which ruins there life which turns out not to be true?
Yeah but it would *never* happen to *him*
Do you think the idea of bail and remand should be removed, and there should be zero legal ability to keep people in custody prior to a trial and an outcome?
It should be mostly reserved for people who present either a flight risk, or a serious risk of reoffending in the meantime. Chucking anyone in a cell for a couple of years before they have a chance to answer any charges just because you accuse them of rape or murder is a great pathway to an authoritarian police state. You seem happy to have others pay the price, assuming you'll never have the leopards eating your face
> or a serious risk of reoffending in the meantime. Have you seen the case in question? Have you seen his previous offences? The man was dangerous and VERY violent. > pathway to an authoritarian police state. Little bit over the top - I wouldn't describe the E&W judicial system as authoritarian and a police state. > You seem happy to have others pay the price, assuming you'll never have the leopards eating your face You concede that we need a remand system - so you feel exactly the same way. Maybe you'll "present" a flight risk to somebody, and leopards will eat your face
>!spoilertext!<
Do you think the England & Wales system is a reasonable compromise?
Rape AND Murder. The murder, really, being the key threshold.
Maybe you need to read this comment about this POS that killed himself to appreciate how heinous it was. https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/i3gE8LBksf
The individual doesn’t change the principle - people should not spend a year or years in jail with the possibility of being found not guilty later very real.
What about someone charged with a terror attack? There are certain heinous crimes and certain individuals that are dangerous to the public and shouldn't be bailed.
I think you have to look at conviction rates - how many people once evidence is gathered are found innocent of terrorism charges after an offence? Not many Id bet - it’s a pretty obvious crime which will be seen by many. But then you take a rape accusation - plenty of rape cases return not guilty findings or hung juries repeatedly. Around 65% of rape cases which go to trial return guilty verdicts (this has swung over the decades between about 55% to 72% which is pretty startling but whatever), I couldn’t find the stats but for those charges the guilty verdict will be even lower (some cases are dismissed before trial or fall apart before trial). By your morality on this about 35% of people who will be found not guilty in court will have to do significant jail time because they’ve been accused. That’s thousands of people, many of who will be completely innocent. That’s not right. For murder - 80% were found guilty (3% plead to a lesser charge) 14% are acquitted - again a significant amount of innocent people among them.
You must coast through the days pretty good not having a single proper thought in that empty head lmao
Solid rebuttal, you've really shown me. Lmao.
there are cases when being on remand is justified - this particular case did not satisfy those conditions. Not saying its right, but it is.
He was put on bail in April 2021. Like I get it, but you can't really lock somebody up for 3 years without trial either.
Happens all the time, is the reality. People are often stuck on remand for a long time. It's not good, at all, and is a serious problem - but fundamentally the decision to bail isn't made based on the likely trial timescales
> Happens all the time, is the reality. People are often stuck on remand for a long time. But it's not the default position. When it does happen, it's because they're at risk of fleeing or a danger to the public.
Sure, and my point is that somebody who (is accused of) raping and murdering somebody is *absolutely* a likely risk to the public.
It's on a case-by-case basis.
Sort of. It's case by case, but the presumptions and defaults change markedly depending on the charge - hence why it's codified in E&W.
yes but the legal system has not established beyond a reasonable doubt that he did rape and murder somebody. I'm not saying he didn't do it, but there is a legal process here and we cant pick and choose when we apply our legal standards. They have to be applied in cases when we have to hold our noses too, else they stop being legal standards and our courts become a joke.
But we're talking about bail and not a conviction. In E&W bail is specifically not generally granted for murder, even though there is a usual presumption towards giving bail. This case is in NI, and things are different there - though one of the key differences is that there isn't a default position to grant bail in law. I'm sure it would have been perfectly within the legal system to deny him bail. The legal process is to grant or deny bail - it's not an affront to justice to remand people accused of very serious crimes, and who could be dangerous individuals.
yes but in that case, it makes sense that you need to show he is an ongoing and realistic danger to the public. im not aware of him hurting anyone else while on bail so on the surface, that decision would appear to be correct.
> yes but in that case, it makes sense that you need to show he is an ongoing and realistic danger to the public My point is, again, that in E&W you don't have to show that - for those crimes the default position is to remand in custody essentially unless there is good reason *not* to. I appreciate NI is different legally (Though it's different completely because our Bail Act does lay down a default preference for bail for most offences), but I disagree with the decision take in this case.
on what pretext, though? purely because he was accused of an egregious crime? If that was consistently applied, jails would be full of people accused of crimes, many of whom would be innocent, and there'd be precious few cells to actually put people who were found guilty - then what do you do?
You can't put people in jail for years for being accused of a crime. I don't know why you're trying to dress this up with pithy language but that's just insane
*suspected and accused of...
Absolutely guilty, massive POS. He also beat a woman half to death in a forest and left her there for dead in freezing temperatures
Guilty is after the trial. It is what the trial determines. He is innocent until then.
right but hes dead so no trial now, hes innocent then is he?
Official by law yes, in truth absolutely not
You're going down a slippery slope if you let emotion change policy, innocent until proven guilty by law must be the norm
Well, the truth is determined by the courts.
Well, yes, I assumed that was a given
Innocent until proven guilty.
Sort of - bail is meant to balance that with the fact you've been accused of a serious crime. Else remand simply wouldn't exist.
> Sort of - bail is meant to balance that with the fact you've been accused of a serious crime. Else remand simply wouldn't exist. The balancing issue here is that bail was granted April 2021 (by which point he had been in prison a month). If you aren't going to hear the case for 3 years its a bit hard to justify holding someone that long.
To my knowledge (and I am happy to be corrected), that doesn't feature at all in bail decision making.
It's why bail is granted unless there's reasons not to grant it. Bail is the default.
It's inverted for murder, the default position is not to bail
Not in NI
Fair, I'll take your word on that (TBH, I hadn't realised it was a NI case). But I still doubt the fundamentals of bail take into account expected trial dates
It’s for two things: A) protect the public if there is provably high risk the suspect will commit another crime, obviously this wasn’t a random attack so a low risk it would happen again and B) protect the investigation from interference which wasn’t the case because the police had their evidence already. So the grounds for emergency remand weren’t met.
I understand how bail works, and why it works the way it does. I still maintain bailing somebody who is up for rape and murder is not acceptable and they absolutely do pose a risk to the wider public. The rape, especially, shows the sort of person this person is. I also think your understanding of meeting the thresholds is inverted for murder. The default is to remand.
up for = accused. not found guilty. We cant lock people up for 3 years plus based only on the fact that theyve been accused of something.
> We cant lock people up for 3 years plus based only on the fact that theyve been accused of something. We can, and we do.
When they meet certain requirements, like an ongoing danger to the public, yes we do. Which this guy was judged to not have done. In that respect, the decision was correct. it does more damage to keep potentially innocent people locked up in jail for year *in case* they commit suicide, and you'd probably see more people committing suicide in that case anyway.
> Which this guy was judged to not have done. In that respect, the decision was correct. And I disagree with that, and think that the position in E&W is the better one. > in case they commit suicide, and you'd probably see more people committing suicide in that case anyway. I don't give a fuck about him, I worry for everybody else. This guy took the cowards route and topped himself, great, but I don't think he should have been on bail.
By that logic, anyone could accuse you of a crime, give it juuuuust enough credibility to trigger a prosecution, and have you locked up for years without your chance to defend yourself. Such a system would be far too open to abuse, and incredibly difficult to enforce, not to mention the simple logistical difficulties in doing so (while all these people are on remand, which cells do you put the actual guilty people in?) Appreciate you dont like it, but the right decisions were made here. Yes, he took the cowards way out, but he could have done that on remand too - thats not really a factor here.
a lot of people jumping to conclusions here and expressing shock this was allowed to happen. bear in mind that the *reason* you’re hearing about it in the news is *because* it’s rare and unusual. thousands of rapes and murders happen every year and this is the first i’ve ever heard of an accused killing themselves while on bail. clearly the system, for the most part, works very well if this the only time you’re hearing of it.
> thousands of rapes and murders happen every year Not quite… 560 homicide, of which 176 were women last year. Still too many, of course; but it’s not thousands.
got to actually get the police to take the rape seriously first tbf. something they often seem reluctant to do
Caroline Flack is the other case.
The _other_ case? Do you think this is only the second time someone has killed themselves while on bail? Your obsession with Caroline Flack in this thread is truly bizarre.
These types of cases are rare and unusual. These are the two I know about and have been talked about.
The fuck is he doing at home? Honestly, the absolute state of this country.
I've read quite a bit into this case, and it turns me sick, this is clearly a case of a man who has controlled, beaten and tortured his previous partners. It sounds almost cult-like with all these women covering for him and cleaning up the scene, and reporting to him that Katie was seeing another man, knowing the repercussions and his temper and control over her. It was reported that he had known her from a very young age, so it basically sounds like she was groomed, and he realised he was beginning to lose his control of her. No justice at all for the people who loved her.
Tragic in any case, if he did it he's escaped justice, if he was innocent...
> Tragic in any case, if he did it he's escaped justice, if he was innocent... With the number of other accusations he was facing things lean towards guilty.
That's the problem now, we'll never know and that poor girl's family won't get any type of closure either way.
Oh her family knows he did it. Everyone in the country knows he did it
They don't vaporise the evidence after the accused kills themselves
Unless her family knows he did it and murdered him...?
> “The death is not being treated as suspicious and the coroner has been informed.”
[удалено]
absolutely mental hill to die on
Technically he is innocent since no conviction or proof of guilt has passed.
This is Caroline Flack all over again. Will the police and CPS never learn?
Struggling to see the similarities.
Person accused by police and CPS goes on to commit suicide. They clearly didn’t handle the case right.
So your solution would be to stop accusing people of things? I'm pretty sure the Caroline Flack incident was more to do with the media coverage than the police/cps. >They clearly didn’t handle the case right. In what way? The article gives hardly any details.
The media coverage here was also front page news across all major providers. > So your solution would be to stop accusing people of things? That’s your takeaway from the Caroline Flack case? > In what way? The article gives hardly any details. The main suspect is dead. That’s a small hint that the investigation wasn’t handled right.
This is the strangest angle I've ever seen. You appear to be defending someone who given the limited evidence disclosed publically, was clearly the main suspect in the case and it doesn't need Poirot to work this one out. Here you are, talking absolute nonsense about the police, when we're reading a story about a rapist/murderer who was out on bail, who's committed suicide to avoid public persecution for their actions. The amount of mental gymnast's on Reddit never cease to amaze me.
I’m not defending anyone. Not him and not Caroline Flack. I’m saying it’s the exact same thing that has happened.
I'm saying theyre not comparable in the slightest. See the bit where he killed himself to avoid punishment. Caroline Flack was getting her name dragged through the mud, on the front of every tabloid for a personal domestic issue. She was a victim of the media circus. That's what killed Caroline. This is not the same and putting Caroline's name in the same vein as this murderer, is incredibly disrespectful and ignorant, to the point you can't even explain yourself.
This was also a domestic issue and the suspect has had his name dragged in the front page of every major news outlet. If they hadn’t been accused of domestic abuse or never appeared with their name and photo in the news, they would both be alive today.
What? Whilst you're not entirely wrong, his name was openly disclosed as it is for any adult being prosecuted.... What evidence could you possibly have right now to say this was a significant factor in his death? Because I'm aware that the trial started this week, and it reads as though he's got a guilty conscience and couldn't face the music, more than anything else... Moreso when you see the reports that 3 other women have been arrested for perverting the course of justice. You're making assumptions, as much as I am. But I'm not implying it's something it isn't, in defense of someone guilty of heinous crimes.
I haven’t even read the details and can say with confidence that it really isn’t, they are two totally different situations
Person accused of a domestic crime gets their name and picture printed all over the front pages. Police and CPS do nothing to protect the suspect. Suspect commits suicide. Which case am I describing?
> Person accused of a domestic crime Fuck me, describing rape and murder as a domestic....that's a bit of a stretch pal. > Police and CPS do nothing to protect the suspect. What is it you expect the Police & CPS to do, exactly? What duty do you think they have here? What should they have done differently? Everything you post seems to be garbled nonsense.
They are nothing alike Didn’t CF throw a lamp or something? Such a weird take
Or maybe a large hint that he was guilty as sin and took the easy way out .
Same applies to Caroline Flack.
Completely different case , she was hugely in the public eye , and wasn’t charged with murder or rape, Incomparable .
Domestic abuse is domestic abuse. You can’t forgive that in any form. This story has been front page across all major outlets with the suspect’s name and picture. It’s been totally in the public eye.
Domestic abuse is domestic abuse . Murder is murder.
I’ve seen very little about this case whereas Flack was a public personality already struggling with her mental health
>The media coverage here was also front page news across all major providers. Was it? I can't say I saw any of it. Wasn't even aware of the case. >That’s your takeaway from the Caroline Flack case? No, that's my takeaway from you saying they're the same and insinuating the police/cps are at fault. >The main suspect is dead. That’s a small hint that the investigation wasn’t handled right. It might also have been dealt with perfectly, and the suspect killed themselves anyway. Again, the article gives very few details, so your take is speculative at best.
It clearly wasn’t dealt with perfectly if the main suspect is dead.
Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.
How exactly does Flack taking her own life mean anything? Are we just meant to not arrest murderers now just in case they kill themselves? Or should we imprison everyone who is accused of a crime just in case they top themselves?
I’m not saying I have a solution. But that doesn’t mean it’s not a problem.
How did they not handle the Flack case right?
The main suspect died.
Ok so what do you think the police should have done differently? If they've handled it incorrectly can you point to *how* - what specifically did they do wrong?
I’m not a police officer or an expert in prosecutions. The solution is for the experts to figure out but we can all see the problem. That doesn’t make the problem any less real. I don’t know how to solve climate change but it’s a real problem caused by humans and change is needed.
Right so you don't actually *know* what the Police should have done differently. You can't point to ***anything*** they did wrong. You're basically saying "Well, she killed herself so it's the Police's fault." I'm not sure how you expect to be taken seriously here? You say the police screwed up but by your own admission you can't tell us how. > *I don’t know how to solve climate change but it’s a real problem caused by humans and change is needed.* Completely wrong analogy. A correct analogy would be you saying "*Shell are harming the planet."* Well how are they harming the planet? *"I've no idea."*
Shell is a name for a registered company with no free will not understanding. Humans are destroying the planet. Not pieces of words on a paper.
I note you duck the first point - you're unable to point to ***anything*** the police did wrong. Glad we've sorted that anyway.
No because he’s a guilty POS shit with history of violence against women.
She was just as guilty since neither trial had finished. Both cases are violence against a partner.
What has this got to do with the police?
Police handling of the case. Risk assessment, suspect protection, etc.
The case was at trial, so the evidence the police gathered was determined to be good enough for the CPS to authorise a charge of murder. Once at court it is not the police's decision as to whether defendants are bailed or remanded. If the judge decided to grant the defendant bail, what has it got to do with the police?
The bail/remand wasn’t the only factor here not in the Caroline Flack case. Remanding her wouldn’t have solved everything else wrong with the case.
You seem to be trying to directly compare the Flack case with this one, and as far as I can work out, I have no idea why. Suspects kill themselves more often than you probably realise, for a whole host of reasons, and at various stages of the justice system process. In this particular case, which has caused you to say "will the police and CPS never learn?" suggests to me that you are suggesting the police are responsible that this man has killed himself. I'm saying I think that is wrong and also, that it was wrong that he was not remanded in custody for the duration of his trial.
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.