cps is famous for wasting court’s time and taxpayers money but you would expect better from the judge, he should have dismiss this case as soon as it reached his desk.
I may have missed it but I see that having run lurid headlines about this case the online Daily Mail has yet to report that Mr Walsh has been found not guilty on all charges. Typical nasty behaviour – just let the poison hang in the air there.
I think they did, John. Not that I can stand the online rag, but I did see something on there yesterday about the Barister being found not guilty. I didn’t read it as I imagined what the comments would be like….
As for the CPS – this is an ever shameful lot who make the most inappropriate decisions regarding what to bring to the courts and what to leave behind. Works out roughly on the basis of – go and kill someone as in the teenager who killed the much respected surgeon and they’ll drop the case of even manslaughter against you as ‘they not convinced a court would find the defendant guilty…) then on the other hand send some private pictures of yourself and others engaged in sexual activities recorded and photographed by yourself, and you get hauled before the courts as Mr Walsh did.
Shameful. That’s what you get from a politically motivated justice system.
Thanks Paul – I did a search and found it hidden away there. Strangely for the Daily Mail readers only 2 comments and both very positive. My best friend tells me I should not go in to the website as it winds me up so much but I like to know what they are up to as I have had personal experience of how awful they are!
The Newsnight report was good on the day of acquital. The interview with the woman from CPS was worrying – a classic piece of stonewalling and buck passing. But then we had Mr Walsh himself and he was very inpressive. Also very fanciable!!
Glad you found it! After my post above, I couldn’t find it again and thought maybe I had imagined it. Interesting only two comments, but then again given how many of the DM readers are most likely into porn, I can imagine it was all a bit too close to home to make their usual comments.
While I don’t like the DM either, although I haven’t had a negative personal experience with them, I do find their photo-journalism quite useful. Like their coverage of the Queen’s Jubilee and so on.
Didn’t see the newsnight programme, but I’m glad Mr Walsh came out well. Must have been a terrible experience to have your own photographs of you and other participants been shown around a court room especially being a barister himself.
As my old grandad used to say – there’s a lot of legisilation, but very little justice.
I wonder about the possibility of asking the Bar Council to investigate the inappropriate comments of the prosecuting barrister in relation to sexual health clinics. Such remarks have angered a number of organisations, including the Terrence Higgins Trust. Additionally, such remarks may had a detrimental effect on individuals in relation to their preparedness to attend such clinics. Does anyone know what the procedure is in relation to asking for an investigation into unprofessional conduct by a barrister?
I think that is a very reasonable suggestion.
CPS are a law unto themselves in the same category as Billy the kid, al capon and others although, not so glamorous or smart. Good to see justice was done the should abolish section 63 it’s a joke of a law and a violation of sexual freedom.
This sounds like institutional homophobia from the CPS.
Whenever gay people I knew tried to bring a case the CPS always said they did not have a case to proceed, but it seems whenever there is cases against gay people there’s no problem proceeding.
one thing to remember is whilst CPS have bought the prosecution it is not always an in house advocate that is on the prosecution side. I know CPS are trying to bring the figures down as it is somewhat expensive to hire external barristers but it still happens. Often one week they will be defending one case and the next prosecuting, simply following a pay cheque rather than any morals.
I would be interested to know if it was an CPS employed barrister or not who made this comment as I can bet if it was the defence who asked a similar comment in another trial there would be far less fuss over it.
I am not trying to stick up for CPS (far from it, I think they are for the most part one of the most difficult organisations to deal with on a daily basis).
Services provided by my local sexual health centre, in the order listed on their website:
STI (Sexually Transmissible Infections)
No Talk Testing
Chlamydia Postal Testing Kits
Non-Sexually Transmitted Infections
If You Are Under 16
Women who have sex with women, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender
If You Have Been Sexually Assaulted
Specialist Clinics for Women
Premenstrual Syndrome (PMS)
Gynae Skin Problems
Most of that is nothing to do with STIs or a riskier sexual lifestyle. What planet was this guy on?
While the COS may have distanced themselves from the comment, they do not appear to have said that whether they intend to reprimand the barrister in question!
Whoops, that should be CPS not COS!
If they are not an in-house barrister then the only two options they have to them is a) not to use their services again and/or b) refer them to the bar council.