Quote Originally Posted by lardy View Post
Agree with the sentiment of this, although he's not been found innocent yet. That will be determined at the trial. We can consider him as being innocent at this moment but thats not the same as being cleared of the charges.
Quote Originally Posted by xsnaggle View Post
The need to prove guilt is a fundamental pillar of British law. you cannot say someone is a rapist until they are proved innocent or every male in the country would be one. Everyone is presumed innocent until found guilty by a Jury of his peers. In this case a dodgy verdict has been overturned by an appeal court. Until the retrial takes place he is innocent.
I think the appeal court justices went for a retrial so that with the new evidence he can be formally acquitted. If the CPS goes to retrial and says it has no new prosecution evidence then the 'Innocent" verdict will be a formality to clear his name.
Until that happens (or not) you cannot say anyone is an 'Un-convicted' anything. You are talking bollox.
The only 2 offences I know of where you need to prove your innocence are Vagrancy and carrying an offensive weapon. The former of these 2 charges is about 800 years old and is one of the oldest statute laws in England and Wales
I don't think you understood what I was saying - did I use the phrase 'unconvicted'? I said he hasn't been found innocent, which is true because there will be another trial.