Sir Cliff Richard: Decision not to press charges against singer now under review after appeal from accuser

CPS confirms it had received an application under the victims' right to review scheme

The decision not to press charges against Sir Cliff Richard over sex abuse allegations is being reviewed after it was challenged by one of his accusers. 
The singer, 75, had his home in Berkshire searched by police in 2014 after four men came forward with allegations of sexual assault against him.
He was never arrested or charged but the search was filmed and he was named publicly as the subject of a probe. 
A spokesman for the CPS confirmed it had received an application under the victims' right to review scheme over the decision made in relation to the star. Alleged victims have up to three months to apply for a review after the original decision is made. He said the review was ongoing.

Sir Cliff said he was “thrilled“ the investigation had been brought to a close after the decision was announced in July, saying his life was “effectively turned upside down” by the events. 
“I have always maintained my innocence, co-operated fully with the investigation, and cannot understand why it has taken so long to get to this point,” he said.
A spokesperson for Sir Cliff declined to comment.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/cliff-richard-decision-not-to-prosecute-singer-now-under-review-after-appeal-from-accuser-a7217941.html



Guess it's not quite over.

But if all the evidence has been looked at and investigated, what point is there in appealing?
Unless there's new evidence of course.

Because the CPS bases it's decision, not on there being no evidence, but whether the evidence is enough for a conviction.   If they say it isn't, the 'victim' has the right of appeal and then a lawyer has to look at the evidence again.

sassy wrote:Because the CPS bases it's decision, not on there being no evidence, but whether the evidence is enough for a conviction.   If they say it isn't, the 'victim' has the right of appeal and then a lawyer has to look at the evidence again.

Okay but again, what else is there to find that he didn't find the first time? That's my question.
It's like saying he didn't do it properly the first time around. How often does it occur that a lawyer finds something completely new?

It's got nothing to do with anything new.   The decision of the CPS is subjective, it is their view it won't obtain a conviction.   The lawyer looks at the evidence to see whether, in his opinion, it would.

Waste of time then.

eddie wrote:Waste of time then.

Oh no,  the victims right to review is a right that has been hard won.
The victim has every right to know why a certain decision has been made. The CPS are not infallible, far from it, some of them are hopeless. I know because part of my job is to advocate for victims and that includes arguing with the CPS.

Miffs2 wrote:

eddie wrote:Waste of time then.

Oh no,  the victims right to review is a right that has been hard won.
The victim has every right to know why a certain decision has been made. The CPS are not infallible, far from it, some of them are hopeless. I know because part of my job is to advocate for victims and that includes arguing with the CPS.

Okay talk me through it slowly....I agree the victim has a right to know, of course, but wasn't she told that the first time round?

No Eddie, not a waste of time.  The decision by the CPS has been overturned many times

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/appeals_judicial_review_of_prosecution_decisions/#Judicial_Review_not

Just waiting for nems to answer becasue I want to see clearly

eddie wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:

Oh no,  the victims right to review is a right that has been hard won.
The victim has every right to know why a certain decision has been made. The CPS are not infallible, far from it, some of them are hopeless. I know because part of my job is to advocate for victims and that includes arguing with the CPS.

Okay talk me through it slowly....I agree the victim has a right to know, of course, but wasn't she told that the first time round?

Nothing to do with a right to know.  It's about A RIGHT FOR A PROSECUTION.   The CPS think the evidence is not enough and they are not always right about that.   So it gets looked at and in some cases the prosection is brought.

Right just googled and got it. Think I was at cross purposes with myself.
Right so my next question is, does she really have a chance in hell?

How do you know it's a she?

And yes, she has a chance dependent on the view of the lawyer.   As I said, the CPS decision has been overturned many times.

Well I assumed but I don't know why because Ive always thought he might be gay.

If Cliff knows the decsion can be overturned he celebrated a little prematurely then.

He might not have known.

sassy wrote:He might not have known.

Then his lawyer was crap!

eddie wrote:

sassy wrote:He might not have known.

Then his lawyer was crap!

Sorry Edds was away for a bit. Previously a victim would not have had the right to request a review, it is a massive step forward. This and the Victims Code of Practice are designed to be able to give the victim a voice within a system that at court stage and beyond, doesn't even recognise a "victim".

Okay got it. So why wasn't Cliff Richard informed that this might happen?

eddie wrote:Okay got it. So why wasn't Cliff Richard informed that this might happen?

It's not a common occurrence, doesn't automatically mean he will be prosecuted. Do we know he wasn't warned?

Miffs2 wrote:

eddie wrote:

Then his lawyer was crap!

Sorry Edds was away for a bit. Previously a victim would not have had the right to request a review, it is a massive step forward. This and the Victims Code of Practice are designed to be able to give the victim a voice within a system that at court stage and beyond, doesn't even recognise a "victim".

Absolutely