A MOCKERY OF JUSTICE
Riot suspects who refused to give their names in court have cases dropped
THREE suspected rioters who refused to reveal their identities in court have had the charges against them dropped.
Prosecutors were yesterday accused of failing justice as they said the case had been ‘discontinued’.
The trio walked free last month despite refusing to give their names. They were ordered to stand trial next year, but will now face no further action. The decision to effectively exonerate them came as: ÷ The Crown Prosecution Service was criticised for failing to prosecute a serial burglar – who targeted a whole town in North Wales – for nine offences; ÷ It emerged a suspected rapist has dodged justice and is now in Bangladesh after he was given police bail before a grooming gang trial.
Critics said the decision to drop the alleged rioters’ case risked sending a message that offenders can dodge trial by simply refusing to co-operate.
A retired senior police officer said the decision was ‘ludicrous’, and branded the CPS the ‘Can’t Prosecute Service’.
Conservative MP Peter Bone said the men had been allowed to ‘thumb their noses at the law’.
He added: ‘It goes against the national interest if any rioter or thug can decide
to withhold their name … It would be completely wrong for them not to prosecute because these men wouldn’t give their names It would send the wrong signal to everyone.’
The trio were arrested in November after allegedly clashing with police during demonstrations by thousands of students against Government cuts. Masked protesters let off flares, threw paint over Government buildings in Westminster and forced their way through police lines.
Officers accused the three young men of attacking police lines and said they had refused to give their names or addresses when stopped. They were held in custody for almost 48 hours but police were unable to identify them as they were not carrying any documentation – a tactic which has been used by militant anarchists.
They were brought before Westminster magistrates and accused of refusing to reveal their name when asked by a police officer. But they continued to defy the authorities and simply grinned and shook their heads when asked their names.
A defence lawyer said they were of previous good character and that they denied the charge against them.
Magistrate Paul Brooks released the trio on unconditional bail, despite having no idea of their true identities or where they lived – and they were told they would have to return in March to face a trial.
But the CPS contacted the men’s lawyer earlier this week to say the case had been discontinued. Magistrates were told yesterday but no reasons were given in court. A Metropolitan Police spokesman said the CPS decision was taken on ‘evidential grounds’.
Peter Cuthbertson, of the Centre for Crime Prevention, said: ‘This is an extraordinary case, but there is now a great risk that in future criminals can avoid justice simply by keeping their names secret.
‘Whether or not the defendants are guilty of attacking police, they have certainly treated the justice system with contempt. The sad truth is that violent thugs do sometimes have reasons to laugh at how feeble the justice system is … Now we see that even extracting the defendants’ names is beyond some judges.’
Chris Hobbs, a retired Met Police detective, warned the decision risked sapping morale among frontline officers. He said: ‘The CPS seems again to have lived up to their nickname – the “Can’t Prosecute Service”.
‘This ludicrous decision comes on the back of other judicial decisions in respect of pathetic sentencing for those found guilty of serious assaults on police.
‘Frontline police, already hit by damaging cuts and constant morale-sapping criticism from the media and politicians, must sometimes wonder why they bother.’
The three men were charged under section 50 of the Police Reform Act 2002, which made it an offence to refuse to give your identity to a constable when asked. The officer who initially asked for their names was said to have had reason to believe they were ‘acting in an anti- social manner, namely attacking and breaching police lines’.
But a CPS spokesman said yesterday: ‘There was insufficient evidence that the police officers had reason to believe the defendants were acting in an anti-social manner so as to be able, in law, to demand their names. There was therefore insufficient evidence that the defendants had committed the offence by declining to give their names.’
MOCKERY OF JUSTICE 1