Mad_Cyril But in this case the law hasn’t been exercised as the accuser has dropped the charges/decided not to proceed
Wrong - it is up to the Crown Prosecution Service as to whether they proceed with the prosecution. They do not necessarily need the co-operation of the supposed victim, and if they actually had sufficient evidence of serious wrong-doing then they likely would have continued:
“Generally, the more serious the offence, the more likely we are to prosecute, even if the victim says they do not wish us to do so. In cases where there is sufficient other evidence, the prosecutor may decide to proceed without relying on the evidence of the victim at all. ”
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/victims-and-witnesses-cps-commitments-support
Plus, with the Greenwood case it also wasn’t only that the alleged victim did not wish to co-operate:
“A CPS spokesperson said: “We have a duty to keep cases under continuous review. In this case, a combination of the withdrawal of key witnesses and new material that came to light meant there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction. In these circumstances, we are under a duty to stop the case.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/feb/02/prosecutors-drop-alleged-case-against-mason-greenwood
So it was not merely that there was not sufficient evidence, but they actually received new material which seemed counter to the possibility of there having been wrong-doing.
The CPS are an agent of the legal system, so the law has “been exercised” in them recognising that there is no realistic prospect of a conviction. A case doesn’t have to go to trial for the law to recognise someone as not guilty - otherwise everyone who is ever accused of anything, however spurious, would remain a suspect unless a trial was wasted on it. The CPS is meant to prevent people’s significant time and resources being needlessly wasted from putting on repeated farces of trials which they know will inevitably be lost.
Mad_Cyril The (publicly) available evidence certainly points in a particular direction and certain sections of the public see fit to ‘convict’.
As per above - what was leaked was clearly very deliberate, and evidently not the full picture.
And as for “certain sections of the public”, well certain sections of the public are complete idiots - take Amps for instance. Now consider that most people in the UK are probably somehow even more thick than Amps is!
Some people are also perhaps ill informed, as you appear to be here.
