DLT...am feeling really sorry for him now.

[ofco8]

Are the police and CPS trying to bankrupt him. Already lost one house and now more exorbitant fees to find.
Those who make the accusations get their fees covered by us. Should be some form of redress if he is found not guilty again..

 

[clippedgull]

Allegations aside, there are lawyers and then there are lawyers. He's obviously gone with very expensive ones. But there should be a system whereby a person found 'not guilty' should have some sort of claim on the public purse for a proportion of fees to be refunded.

 

[Gwylan]

Those who make the accusations get their fees covered by us.

What fees? It doesn't cost anything to report a crime to the police, you know (although I'm sure George Osborne is considering it)

 

[downham seagull]

2 charges with a hung verdict 10-2 or 11-1 found him not guilty on the other 12, so it is highly unlikely that many of the 10 or 11 found him guilty on the 2 remaining. I would say it probably was 9-3 or 8-4 in DLT favour so u can't see the point of a retrial. The CPS are under pressure to get a result.

 

[beorhthelm]

does seem a bit of a broken system where you are bankrupted to defend yourself. but then can we expect the tax payer to pick up every case regardless of person wealth? difficult.

 

[Pavilionaire]

DLT - coming to a reality show near you.

 

[Prince Monolulu]

 

[e77]

Big call by the CPS. If he is found innocent questions will be asked after some high profile acquittals.

 

[dougdeep]

Poor sod. The price of innocence.

 

[KZNSeagull]

I thought that if you were prosecuted and acquitted, the prosecution paid the costs?

 

[middletoenail]

How can one person have so many accusations against them from different people, and not be guilty?

 

[nwgull]

How can one person have so many accusations against them from different people?

Given his celebrity status it's conceivable that he's had 'flings' with dozens of impressionable young women and probably pissed plenty of them off. However, this isn't a crime.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Given his celebrity status it's conceivable that he's had 'flings' with dozens of impressionable young women and probably pissed plenty of them off. However, this isn't a crime.

There's always enough people willing to say whatever they can if they see the possiblity of dollar signs at the end of it.

 

[kevo]

How can one person have so many accusations against them from different people, and not be guilty?

This tends to be my feeling as well, not only with DLT but also William Roche. It happened so long ago, it was always unlikely there would be enough evidence to prove anything 'beyond reasonable doubt' all these years later. It probably boils down to one person's word against another's, and that isn't usually enough to secure a conviction. When there are so many allegations of a similar nature it does make you wonder, despite the fact that nothing has been proven.

 

[drew]

Poor sod. The price of innocence.

We don't know if he is innocent. All we know is that on some of the charges, the Jury decided there was not enough evidence to convict him!

2 charges with a hung verdict 10-2 or 11-1 found him not guilty on the other 12, so it is highly unlikely that many of the 10 or 11 found him guilty on the 2 remaining. I would say it probably was 9-3 or 8-4 in DLT favour so u can't see the point of a retrial. The CPS are under pressure to get a result.

Not sure how you can speculate like that!!!

 

[Cian]

How can one person have so many accusations against them from different people, and not be guilty?

Mass hysteria can and does develop.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

no win no fee for the prosecution
win or lose, you pay for the defence

seems harsh?

 

[trueblue]

does seem a bit of a broken system where you are bankrupted to defend yourself. but then can we expect the tax payer to pick up every case regardless of person wealth? difficult.

I think if the State brings a case against a person who is found to be not guilty then, yes, the taxpayer should have to pick up the tab. The pressure should be on the CPS to avoid pursuing cases where the evidence is not rock solid.

 

[Gwylan]

I think if the State brings a case against a person who is found to be not guilty then, yes, the taxpayer should have to pick up the tab. The pressure should be on the CPS to avoid pursuing cases where the evidence is not rock solid.

There's no such thing as rock solid evidence - there have been plenty of places where evidence has looked 100% certain only for there to be an acquittal (Faslane, Clive Ponting to name two). The CPS brings cases if there's a strong case - that's the best it can do.

There's scarcely likely to be a change to award defendants' costs - the government only changed this about 18 months ago, why would it suddenly commit to more costs?

http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/advice/practice-notes/defence-costs-orders/

 

[drew]

I think if the State brings a case against a person who is found to be not guilty then, yes, the taxpayer should have to pick up the tab. The pressure should be on the CPS to avoid pursuing cases where the evidence is not rock solid.

I don't agree. We are talking about criminal cases here, not the civil court.