In The Times yesterday there were four letters to the Editor in relation to the Liam Allan rape trial, they’re here. The first letter is from Alison Saunders. The first of three paragraphs starts with this:
Further to your report Judge slams police after man cleared in rape trial, the prosecution decision to offer no evidence in a rape case against Liam Allan was taken after new material emerged after an additional disclosure to the defence. It is regrettable that this disclosure happened at a late stage and I would like to apologise to all parties involved in this.
Now, you have to ask, what is this toxic feminist apologising for? Is it for the failure of the CPS to review the telephone evidence which would later prove Liam Allan’s innocence, before making the decision to bring a prosecution? Did the CPS discourage the police from reviewing and/or releasing that evidence? Besides, the CPS has no reservations about making charging decisions even when there genuinely is no evidence to support the defence case, or even when the evidence doesn’t support the prosecution case (e.g. the CCTV evidence in Mark Pearson’s trial).
The second paragraph in her letter relates to suggestions that cost considerations (at the police and CPS) led to the non-disclosure of evidence. It ends with this:
Cost decisions play no part in decisions over disclosure.
So what does play a part? Ideological considerations, clearly. The drive to get more men behind bars for sexual offences, regardless of the evidence against them, or the lack of it.
The third and final paragraph of the letter ends with this classic example of responsibility distribution:
There are systemic disclosure issues across the entire criminal justice system, and it will take a collective effort from all participants in order for improvements to be made.
I cannot find even one call in the MSM for the damnable harridan to be fired.