Anabolic steroids affect personality and behaviour. Avoid.
Generally I would agree that anabolic steroid affect personality and behaviour (often negatively). However, there are genuine clinical reasons to use them on occasion, in clearly controlled circumstances.
On the wider issue of the case against Carter, I am pleased to see the charges have been dropped in their entirety. I recall a fre months ago many PN readers speculating (without evidence) that there was “no smoke without fire”. Hopefully, many of the more measured PN readers did recognise that English law presumes innocence until guilt is proven.
Hopefully, WYP will reconsider the suspension urgently. Although, I do know that police disciplinary matters have a lower burden of proof than criminal matters, and we do not know the full range of the WYP investigation. There were however, clear allegations that WYP had acted with impropriety at the time these matters were discussed on PN a few months back.
Whats has that got to do with anything?
The man is innocent. It’s out of order that his identity was revealed
What has what got to do with anything? Which specific issue do you have concerns about?
I agree he was innocent. I have mixed feelings on anonymity in criminal cases. I do feel that seeing justice happen in a public arena is important for public confidence in the criminal justice and judicial systems. I understand why in some cases eg sexual offences there are considerations for anonymity of witnesses and I can see the argument for extending this to the accused.
That post was to Dan Stu. These comments do not fall in order
Too right. His reputation has been ruined. The false accusers should be named and shamed and prosecuted instead of hiding behind anonymity.
The law is an ass.
Anonymity should be guaranteed in ALL criminal cases, particularly ones of a sexual nature. Not only does it endanger the accused (who may be innocent) but it endangers the family and friends.
There is another problem in that in the world of the current media – the accusations will be permanently available on the internet.
Just google Justice4KJ and you’ll see how things can go so horribly wrong.
I suspect this is something that the judicial review into the media may well consider indirectly.
I can empathize with the reasons for particular offences to be anonymous eg sexual offences.
I do think that transparency in judicial processes is better where justice is seen to be done and anonymity makes this more complex. There are offences such as witness intimidation which applies to both the victims and witnesses of the case. Other offences such as harassment, attempting to pervert the course of justice, threatening behaviour, assault etc may also be committed. Its a balancing act, but whilst there have been cases where things have gone wrong – that does not mean we should rashly move to anonymise all cases.
I wouldn’t be in favour of anonymity for those journalists charged with phone hacking.
Also with anonymity you could end up with a system where people just disappear and no one knows why, so far from protecting the accused, it means no one has information about where they are. Plenty of examples around the world spring to mind.
In my opinion, he’s just been used as a scapegoat by some in WYP because of his openness of his sexuality. It matters not if he was using an anabolic steroid for whatever purpose.
Let us hope he can get back to doing what he was doing before this story broke and that is policing the streets of West Yorkshire, without being ridiculed further.
The people who accused him should be charged
In this instance (from what I know of the case) I would agree those who can be shown to have made false accusations should be considered for prosecution of either attempting to pervert the course of justice or perjury.
Unlikely. The officer has not been found innocent. He has been found not-guilty. The jury were unpersuaded to the high criminal standard that the state had proved his guilt. It is possible that the other persons were telling the truth – but as a matter of law, this officer is not guilty.
I am sure that there are rapists that are acquitted because of the nature of the evidence even though they committed the crime. It would be inappropriate to prosecute the victims every time their accuser was found not guilty.
In England & Wales you are innocent till you are proven guilty … There is a presumption of innocence … There is no verdict of not proven. Guilty or not guilty.
If he has not been found guilty then he by definition of law is innocent.
No that is not correct. At law, you are presumed innocent for the purpose of criminal trial and punishment. If a person is acquitted at a trial, the fact of their acquittal may still go on their record.
If a person is acquitted but then, after acquittal, confesses their guilt, they would not be “innocent”. They would have been found “not guilty” and they could not be retried for their crime.
Further, take a male against whom four complaints of rape and assault were made by different women who happened to be street workers. On each occasion, the male encouraged them to drink alcohol and smoke crack. As witnesses, they would be hopeless – no court would convict. However, the fact of these complaints would go on that person’s record if he applied to work with, say, children or vulnerable people. Similarly if he were acquitted of four different rapes – the acquittals would show on his criminal record so that if he applied to work in a women’s refuge, the acquittals would be revealed.
He remains innocent until proven, regardless of the ability to retry and given the ability to retry under double jeopardy legislation – that can occur regardless of a not guilty verdict.
Currently, he has not been found to be guilty thus he is not guilty.
Your contention otherwise is technical in the extreme and tenuous. It is suggestive that you believe he may be hiding something in a duplicitous manner. Its shocking and disturbing given the reported facts of this case in the reputable media.
De veillers you have a cheek calling me names This poor bloke cleared his name after 4 years and you’re still having a go you git
Hardly, James! I’m not saying he has done anything wrong. I am, however, pointing out that it may be inappropriate to prosecute his accuser and that being not guilty is a legal rather than a factual conclusion. A person can be found not guilty of a matter in the criminal courts to the high criminal standard of beyond all reasonable doubt and yet be found responsible for the act in the civil courts on the lower civil standard of the balance of probabilities.
Its a tenuous fact to compare and contrast criminal and civil prosecutions. The facts remain that Carter has been found not guilty in a criminal court and thus deserves to be treated as innocent unless the situation changes and either a criminal or a civil court finds him guilty. To speculate that he may be guilty when he has not been found guilty is irresponsible, unkind and speculative. It does nothing to support justice, the individual who (as far as we can tell from current facts) has had a false allegation made against them (and reported facts in the media make this a reliable conclusion to reach), nor does it support those who made the allegations (whatever the propriety of the allegations). Your comments are unhelpful and damaging.
Stu, reeread my post above. Nowhere did I say that this person should be treated as anything other than not guilty. What I said was that this was a term of law, not fact. Juries are not asked to find what happened but merely whether the prosecution has proved the action beyond all reasonable doubt. If they think that the person probably did it, they would still have to acquit. I re-post what I said above, which was in relation to prosecuting the person that made the original allegation:
“The officer has not been found innocent. He has been found not-guilty. The jury were unpersuaded to the high criminal standard that the state had proved his guilt. It is possible that the other persons were telling the truth – but as a matter of law, this officer is not guilty.
I am sure that there are rapists that are acquitted because of the nature of the evidence even though they committed the crime. It would be inappropriate to prosecute the victims every time their accuser was found not guilty.”
Imagine, say, that the accuser was charged with perjury and was acquitted. Then this officer would have been acquitted of rape but his accuser would also have been acquitted of telling lies in court. That is possible because an acquittal is a finding that there is insufficient evidence to prove guilt rather than a finding of innocence.
I have re-read your comments and still stand by my opinion regarding them.
Firstly, it is a legal presumption of innocence in England & Wales unless you are found guilty. It is therefore wrong to say that someone is not innocent when they have not been found guilty.
Secondly, if you have followed this particular case, including coverage in regional newspapers which including some verbatim comments from within the trial, there is strong reason to suspect that these were false accusations. Where there is evidence of false accusation then it should be tested by CPS in terms of whether there is a case to answer and whether it is in the public interest to bring a case of either attempting to pervert the course of justice, perjury or wasting police time or a combination. False concern about both defendants (the apparently falsely accused of rape and the person making those apparently false accusations) being found innocent is irrelevant to this happening
Yes – in “law” you are presumed innocent. But not necessarily in fact. Which is why in this country the authorities can rely upon the fact of acquittals to refuse a person a licence to work with children or vulnerable adults. Further, whether or not the accuser was false, if he were to be tried and acquitted of falsehood then, according to your lights, there would be an irresolvable contradiction – one man acquitted of rape and the accuser acquitted of telling lies.
Taking the example at its highest, rather than its easiest, this must mean that the legal concept of not guilty if not the same as the factual concept of innocent.
Whilst I agree that there can be reliance on court proceedings that do not result in a guilty verdict in terms of protection of children and vulnerable adults. This is a measured process with review of the cases by experienced case managers in the Independent Safeguarding Authority who have access to court transcripts and can request (and obtain) further information from police, probation, etc etc. Very few people would have restrictions placed on them as a result of a single court case where there was not a guilty verdict. There would usually have to be (at least) some additional circumstantial evidence to corroborate concerns. These restrictions can also be subject to appeal. It is therefore, disingenuous to suggest that someone who is presumed innocent in law is consequently likely to face onerous other restrictions. In this case it is likely if a referral was made to the ISA that the caseworker would see the lack of credibility in the evidence of those ….
… accusing Carter.
Also, I accept that if (and its a bit if) there were a case for perjury etc brought where there was not a guilty verdict then this would lead to an irreconcilable position regarding events. These circumstances occur in English law (and other jurisdictions). The burden of proof is onerous on the prosecution (and rightly so). That said, purely because there may be an irreconcilable position, does not then preclude or interfere in the public interest of bringing charges for perjury etc. I would argue that where prima facie evidence exists of such offences it would be immoral not to test them in a court.
There may be an aspect of scapegoating, but if that is the case lets hope Carter makes a referral to the IPCC and they deal with this.
However, if it was simple scapegoating then I am sure the professional standards department at WYP would have found something on data protection checks, thoroughness of handling investigations, property handing etc etc if they wishes to formulate a witch hunt. For rape allegations to formulate part of a witch hunt then you seem to be suggesting WYP instigated the complaints and conspired to make false accusations i.e conspired to pervert the course of justice. I find that unlikely. They may have taken advantage of an allegation, but nonetheless the allegation would have to be made in the first instance. I suspect if there is impropriety in WYP that its individual (or a small group of) officers rather than the organisation who sought to cause Carter problems.
Lets hope he can return to policing and serving the public.
Give me a break the man was setup and his reputation was damnaged those guys who accused him lied and should be prosecuted
For rape allegations to formulate part of a witch hunt then you seem to be suggesting WYP instigated the complaints and conspired to make false accusations i.e conspired to pervert the course of justice. I find that unlikely.
You need to grow up
Do you have evidence that he was set up, James!?
If you have I presume you have either made effort to contact Carter or his legal team or forwarded your details of corruption to the IPCC?
If it is a set up conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by police officers in a rape case is pretty serious stuff, and I hope you can back up what I believe to be blatant speculation.
Unless you have evidence to the contrary, I suspect it is you, James!, who needs to grow up with regards this matter
For the record, I do suspect he has been treated appallingly by WYP but not that the police fabricated the allegations …
Stu you can trust the pigs if you want just remember the highest met police office resigned due to phone hacking and they also tried to get the name of the guardian informant.
nice trustworthy people aren’t they
The connection with phone hacking is?
The evidence you have to make such a suggestion is?
My experience is that when there is misconduct or criminality in the police often it comes to attention sooner or later and leads to either disciplinaries, court cases and/or resignations. Arguably, this may be why certain Met officers resigned re hacking. If you have evidence regarding WYP in this case, I again respectfully suggest you either hand it to the IPCC or Carters legal team (if you do not have confidence in the police or IPCC) or the media (someone reputable such as the Guardian or Telegraph in terms of investigative journalism). If you do not have evidence of such impropriety, then speaking in general terms about your lack of confidence in the police is reasonable, suggesting impropriety without such evidence, in particular cases, I would frankly regard as libellous.
Excellent news. All the best to Mark Carter in his future career.
“He remains suspended from West Yorkshire Police”
hopefully on full pay
and hopefully to soon return to duties
- out and proud
The number of cases reported is small. The number of people charged is even smaller. And the number of convictions smaller still. The percentage of convictions in rape cases is ALWAYS very low. That’s because it’s usually 1 person’s word against another – particularly in a date rape which seems to have been the unproven allegation here. That can be virtually impossible to prove.
Therfore to say that his accused should be named and shamed is simply not going to work. What message does that send to a real rape victim?
This guy has been wrongfully accused, publicly named and shamed and his reputation is in tatters.
That is utterly appalling.
However instead of identifying his accuser I’d prefer to see those people who are accused of rape, being entitled to the exact same anonymity as the accusers,
That is fair.
I know that the anabolic steroids that Carter was using was for ‘medicinal purposes’. I would urge him to change doctors if his prescription is giving him ‘roid rage’
The victim told lie after lie and these were exposed in court (eventually).
I agree that in this case the accuser should be hung out to dry. What he did was nasty and it has ruined Mark Carter’s career and life
I think Mark Carter (along with all those accused of rape) should be afforded the same anonymity an accuser.
Rape is a horrible crime with a very low conviction rate. It sends a terrible signal to the real victims of rape if they know that they will be named and shamed, if their prosecution is unsuccessful (which happens very frequently
Absolutely David. The criminal justice system should do all it can to encourage genuine survivors of rape to come forward and assist in prosecutions, and make legitimate prosecutions effective. Simultaneously,it must protect those who are accused falsely (that probably means anonymity for the accused until and unless found guilty).
Yes. It is also true that when a person is named as being a suspect of rape, other women will come forward with the confidence to say that they, too, may have been raped by that individual.
That French chap Strauss khan (?) comes to mind, lost his career and chance at the Presidency after the incident in NY, now someone has also come forward in France. Difficult to balance out.
That is a perfect example. Everyone in Paris knew about DSK. It took the public reporting of his arrest to enable another woman to come forward.
That said, the manner of the public reporting was disgraceful. England seems to have the best balance between the grotesque sensationalism of the United States and the impenetrable secrecy of France.
If everyone knew about DSK why did they wait till the media circus before coming forward?
What link does DSK have to Carter?
Surely, those with false allegations made against them (and there are many each year in the UK) deserve a level of protection …
As a survivor of rape, I am not trying to make it easy for those who are genuinely accused. I can see that the testimony of those who have been genuinely raped is undermined by those who make false accusations and weakens the case of other rape survivors. This being so, we must have mechanisms that improve the integrity of judicial matters connected to sexual assault and protect both survivors and those whom have false accusations brought against them. I would argue that the usual course of action should be to prosecute those who make false allegations but I recognise the difficulty is this can reduce the willingness of survivors to come forward in case they are not believed. The nature of those offence is …
… that often it is one persons word against another whether or not there is forensic evidence. Survivors often (for legitimate reasons) believe they will be made to appear to be lying either under cross examination or suffer inappropriately in a manner that psychologically is tantamount to being raped again.
We need a balance, but that does not mean ignoring that those who are falsely accused deserve rights and protection.
Be real, Stu. Many things are open secrets that are not printed in the newspapers, particularly in France where the newspapers are subsidised by the state. Witness all the people now coming forward saying openly that they knew DSK was trouble
I am being real – I do not think a scenario where the judicial system is motivated by media circuses is a reliable or honourable system to have.
If people knew about DSK prior to the media excitement, then they have acted immorally themselves for not coming forward prior to the media examination
Well said Stu in last paragraph. I also agree with the rest of the post.
WYP have no reason than to reinstate a police officer who is an asset. Obviously he has the problem of having to deal with the rest of his colleagues who although so ‘gay friendly’ these days still have to pick up a paper and read the date.
Steroids do have a place but they must be treated as a last resort. The cumulative effect is far worse than the problem that they will provide a temporary fix to.
I hope he turns around and sue the people who made trouble for him so he can get some justice. Gays need to now watch out for people who want to set them up in false cases like this to make them look bad. I bet there are some Christians behind this, like in America where the Right Wing Christians are plotting and planning and spending millions to stop gay marriage and all LGBT people. The Right Wing Christians have some evil plans they are using right now that will make the Norway Christian Terrorist look like a boy scout.
Sad state of affairs with a positive outcome! Accusations like this are hard to defend once made. Far too many people read tabloid news and conclude guilty as charged with any headline they read. People need to exercise caution before jumping to conclusions about guilt, fabricated facts and press are often how police build a case and court public opinion.
I am happy to learn of the not guilty verdict, remain very suspicious of his accusers.
Best wishes to Carter for happier brighter tomorrows now the clouds have lifted!.
brilliant well done for coping, Justice is done, all the best and hope the future is successful after this dreadful allegation
Being stabbed with a mutton dagger is hardly rape, it´s called an attack with a friendly weapon!