Murder Charges Dropped

I want to show you how the CPS decide to prosecute a case. The following information is obtained from the CPS's own website. I can't fathom the logic behind them reducing the charges from Murder to Manslaughter. Like I've said umpteens times before they should have accepted they had originally got it wrong and dropped the charges against Karl and me altogether.
Crown Prosecutors have to ask themselves the following two questions when they are making their charging decisions
Is there enough evidence against the defendant?
There must be enough evidence to provide a 'realistic prospect of conviction' against the defendant. A realistic prospect of conviction is an objective test. It means that a jury or bench of magistrates, properly directed according to the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the alleged charge. This is a separate test from the one that the criminal courts must apply. A jury or magistrates' court should only convict the defendant if they are sure that he or she is guilty.
When deciding whether there is enough evidence to prosecute, Crown Prosecutors must consider whether the evidence can be used in court and is reliable. This means that they must assess the quality of the evidence from all witnesses before reaching a decision. A decision to drop a case does not mean that the prosecutor has decided to believe one witness and not believe another.
If there is not a realistic prospect of conviction, the case must not go ahead, no matter how important or serious it may be.
If there is a realistic prospect of conviction, the Crown Prosecutor will ask the next question.
Is it in the public interest for the CPS to bring the case to court?
The Decision To Prosecute
1. In most cases, Crown Prosecutors are responsible for deciding whether a person should be charged with a criminal offence, and if so, what that offence should be. Crown Prosecutors make these decisions in accordance with this Code and the Director's Guidance on Charging. In those cases where the police determine the charge, which are usually more minor and routine cases, they apply the same provisions.
2. Crown Prosecutors make charging decisions in accordance with the Full Code Test (see section 5 below), other than in those limited circumstances where the Threshold Test applies (see section 6 below).
3. The Threshold Test applies where the case is one in which it is proposed to keep the suspect in custody after charge, but the evidence required to apply the Full Code Test is not yet available.
4. Where a Crown Prosecutor makes a charging decision in accordance with the Threshold Test, the case must be reviewed in accordance with the Full Code Test as soon as reasonably practicable, taking into account the progress of the investigation.



5. The Full Code Test
1. The Full Code Test has two stages. The first stage is consideration of the evidence. If the case does not pass the evidential stage it must not go ahead no matter how important or serious it may be. If the case does pass the evidential stage, Crown Prosecutors must proceed to the second stage and decide if a prosecution is needed in the public interest. The evidential and public interest stages are explained below.
The Evidential Stage
2. Crown Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is enough evidence to provide a 'realistic prospect of conviction' against each defendant on each charge. They must consider what the defence case may be, and how that is likely to affect the prosecution case.
3. A realistic prospect of conviction is an objective test. It means that a jury or bench of magistrates or judge hearing a case alone, properly directed in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged. This is a separate test from the one that the criminal courts themselves must apply. A court should only convict if satisfied so that it is sure of a defendant's guilt.
4. When deciding whether there is enough evidence to prosecute, Crown Prosecutors must consider whether the evidence can be used and is reliable. There will be many cases in which the evidence does not give any cause for concern. But there will also be cases in which the evidence may not be as strong as it first appears. Crown Prosecutors must ask themselves the following questions:
Can the evidence be used in court?
a. Is it likely that the evidence will be excluded by the court? There are certain legal rules which might mean that evidence which seems relevant cannot be given at a trial. For example, is it likely that the evidence will be excluded because of the way in which it was gathered? If so, is there enough other evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction?
Is the evidence reliable?
b. Is there evidence which might support or detract from the reliability of a confession? Is the reliability affected by factors such as the defendant's age, intelligence or level of understanding?
c. What explanation has the defendant given? Is a court likely to find it credible in the light of the evidence as a whole? Does it support an innocent explanation?
d. If the identity of the defendant is likely to be questioned, is the evidence about this strong enough?
e. Is the witness's background likely to weaken the prosecution case? For example, does the witness have any motive that may affect his or her attitude to the case, or a relevant previous conviction?
f. Are there concerns over the accuracy or credibility of a witness? Are these concerns based on evidence or simply information with nothing to support it? Is there further evidence which the police should be asked to seek out which may support or detract from the account of the witness?
5. Crown Prosecutors should not ignore evidence because they are not sure that it can be used or is reliable. But they should look closely at it when deciding if there is a realistic prospect of conviction.

I didn't put the Threshold test in because the decision to drop the Murder charge was in August which was plenty of time to gather evidence.

I will ask you to read the following again
03/09(6) Clifford Ellis 2nd Statement
03/16(6) More Gary Daw
03/23(12) The Forensics
Was there enough evidence to continue with a charge of Manslaughter?
How in a million years did they ever think they were going to get a conviction?
So when Mr francis says " This is the most complex matter I have ever had to deal with". The only reason it was so complexed was they were trying to fit the evidence they had to the wrong people. By that I mean Rod, Karl and me. From where I sit it looks a pretty good match to Withers and his mate.