CPS attempting to use BAD LAW to stitch people up. Again.

At least this time they eventually failed.

But not before a man’s name had been dragged through the mud and his access to his child denied.

Back in March:

image

The first charge centred on an allegation that he had in his possession a clip featuring human-animal sex. This was dropped after the prosecution discovered that the animal in question – a tiger – was actually a CGI-generated spoof, modelled loosely on Tony the Tiger of Frosties fame, and that the tiger finished off his sex act by turning to camera and saying "That beats doing adverts for a living".

The first charge was dropped by the CPS on the date of the court hearing.

On the second charge, the man was told by the judge that he faced being sent to prison.

Yet, last week:

image

In March, following advice from his legal team, Holland pleaded guilty to possessing one extreme porn clip and was stunned to be told that he might face a prison sentence. Holland then spoke to members of Consenting Adult Action Network and sexual rights organisation Backlash, who put him in touch with their legal adviser, Myles Jackman of Audu and Co in King’s Cross, London.

So he pleaded guilty on the basis of his legal advice. A bit like the Paul Chambers case.

Then along came a lawyer who had made a different reading of Labour’s wooly and insidious legislation and…

Jackman, a solicitor specialising in extreme pornography offences, advised Holland that contrary to previous advice, there were grounds for pleading not guilty.

On this basis, Holland took the unusual step of applying to the court for permission to "vacate his plea". This is a technical device whereby an individual may go back on a guilty plea at any time before sentencing.

In May, His Honour Judge Rogers, sitting at the Mold Crown Court granted Holland leave to vacate his plea from guilty back to not guilty. Holland was therefore due to stand trial again yesterday. He was expected to call several expert witnesses who would have challenged the characterisation of the clip as "pornographic", arguing instead that the content was intended to be a form of extremely bad taste joke and not sexual in nature.

The CPS, however, declined to offer any evidence, and the matter is at an end.

Err…

We spoke to Holland after the case yesterday and he declared himself very relieved. Due to the sexual nature of the case, he has been barred from contact with his daughter since the case began and he is now determined to re-establish contact. He told us: "Now I can start to put my life back together."

The CPS has not yet commented on this matter, or on the fact that on each charge, it was not until the day of the court appearance that it decided the evidence to hand was inadequate. ®

So that’s it then.

No harm done, eh?

Fascist idiots.

AJ

Advertisements

About Al Jahom
Anti-social malcontent, misanthrope and miserable git.

7 Responses to CPS attempting to use BAD LAW to stitch people up. Again.

  1. Ethan says:

    CPS IMO is a quango that needs to be on top of the bonfire.

    What a pity that no government can legislate a return to common sense.

    Take this idiocy….
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7932063/Painting-fence-leads-to-criminal-damage-fine.html

    Truly as a nation we are completely borked. The nutters have taken over the reins and won’t let them go.
    Truly I despair.

  2. JuliaM says:

    “What a pity that no government can legislate a return to common sense.”

    They don’t need to. Just remove Crown Immunity.

  3. Bucko says:

    How on earth did the police know that he had a clip of Tony the Tiger getting it on?
    And is it the kind of clip that millions of teenagers have on their mobile phones?

    • Ethan says:

      Probably he forwarded it onto some ‘Millie Tant’ who saw it as her duty to inform the Guardian, Social Workers and Police..in that order. Vengeful ex wife?

      Memo to self…must attend a Turkish wedding and borrow grooms AK47 pressie.

    • JuliaM says:

      Just how realistic was this CGI, if they thought it was real bestiality?

      • Jiks says:

        Doesn’t need to be realistic to be “extreme porn.” My understanding is the law is so vague a comic strip where Batman kicks the baddie in the nuts could be classed as such.

        • Al Jahom says:

          There’s the rub.

          Another badly drafted knee-jerk piece of New Labour shite, dripping with unintended consequences for the malicious cunts at the CPS to manifest.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: