Boris Johnson next prime minister?

Status
Not open for further replies.
motorbiking said:
My money is on the CPS taking over and dropping the case.
Click to expand...
I understand that one of the parties have to request the CPS to look at it, and take it over.
The CPS cannot simply, unilaterally take it over.
 
Sponsored Links
motorbiking said:
Your understanding is incorrect.

Have a read...
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/private-prosecutions
Click to expand...
Accepted. I read it some where, probably the Daily Mail. :rolleyes:

You are correct, but:
Anyone can bring a private prosecution - for example, the RSPCA pursue animal cruelty cases all the time.

But the Director of Public Prosecutions, Max Hill QC, has the power to either take over a case or stop it in its tracks.

He can therefore authorise the Crown Prosecution Service to take over Mr Johnson's case if the allegations made by Mr Ball pass the CPS' own evidence test, there is a public interest in doing so, or there is a particular need to get involved.

The DPP can stop a private prosecution if he concludes it's vexatious, malicious or flawed for a range of other reasons.

Given the district judge has already declared there is a prima facie case to be tested, the DPP may decide there's nothing he can usefully add and stay well clear.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48445430​
Bold is my emphasis.
So your money might be better placed elsewhere.

Additionally, given the recent reduction in the CPS budget, they might decide their money is better spent elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
After reading it, did you conclude anything which might lead you to see a difference in how an organisation / charity may be regarded vs an individual?
 
Sponsored Links
he's trying to make a point but he won't tell you what it is.
 
Notch7 said:
Following a private, crowd funded claim.....

Nah

Not in a million years.
Click to expand...
It's a prosecution to be tested in the courts. The judge has already ruled that certain aspects of the prosecution's case have been met.
As far as I can tell, the defence rests on the argument, 'was he in acting in a public officer role, when he made the false statements?'.
The judge has already ruled that even though a public officer may not have been acting in that role, they still have a responsibility to act appropriately.
BJ did not act appropriately. He could have corrected the false information, he could have distanced himself from it.
He did neither, he endorsed the false information, giving it legitimacy.
 
Mfatic said:
It's a prosecution to be tested in the courts. The judge has already ruled that certain aspects of the prosecution's case have been met.
As far as I can tell, the defence rests on the argument, 'was he in acting in a public officer role, when he made the false statements?'.
The judge has already ruled that even though a public officer may not have been acting in that role, they still have a responsibility to act appropriately.
BJ did not act appropriately. He could have corrected the false information, he could have distanced himself from it.
He did neither, he endorsed the false information, giving it legitimacy.
Click to expand...

Nah, wont happen.

BJ4PM (y)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links

Similar threads

M
The Big Race!
Replies
9
Views
685
durhamplumber
D
Back
Top