Chris Kaba

...and yet...

This argument goes around regularly for sexual assault cases, especially for high-profile serial offenders. The argument in favour of naming the accused is that it helps to bring other victims out.

www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/key-issues-parliament-2015/justice/anonymity-for-defendants/

For sure, but I would posit that it is a very limited number of people who would actually think that, especially in this country. 

For those like me that were scratching their heads a bit on this one, presumably you are referring to a case in Australia from 2020. 'Cos for a moment there, given the context of the thread, I assumed you were referring both generally and specifically to the UK. 

I also suspect that's the case: rather obviously they had the access to exactly the same video and the likely testimony of the other officers. And if so, as I started this discussion with, there are significant questions to be asked of the process involved in coming to a charging decision.

However, we shouldn't overlook the fact that it was the IOPC who investigated, and handed that over to the CPS. And the IOPC had also recommended Gross Misconduct hearing (put on hold for the trial). The CPS might have felt that put them under undue pressure, even if they concluded that there was no reasonable chance of a conviction. Most likely though, they felt it was politically the right thing to do. 

I know someone who was in that position, IT was only after he was found not guilty that the police started to investigate the victim, she'd accused 10-12 different men of sexual assault 4 had been taken to court and every one was a quick not guilty ( one in under 20 minutes of deliberations )
The guy I knew was put through months of hell and lost his job, he even had witnesses that put him in a different town that night. 
It seems to me the CPS have an almost random factor in deciding which cases to prosecute

OK, thanks for the link. But reading the article that wasn't actually the conclusion.

Firstly, it didn't end up going to trial: or rather it went to trial but the CPS offered no evidence and so there was no trial hearing. So the "verdict" bit is limited purely to the last part "Not Guilty".

The first part comes in relation to the basis on which the CPS initially pressed charges: "It had been alleged that PC Corker deliberately steered on to the wrong side of the road towards the pedestrian in a "misguided and dangerous attempt to stop him running away". Note "alleged" at this point.

So why did the CPS withdraw the case by not offering any evidence to court? Because: "However, the court was told of agreement between experts that the defendant’s actions in steering on to the wrong side of the road would have avoided a collision had the deceased not changed direction".

So the conclusion of the experts was that the defendant's action in steering to the other side of the road was entirely compatible with, and indeed evidence of, the driver (PC Coker) taking deliberate steps to avoid collision with the victim. And not as originally alleged a "misguided and dangerous attempt to stop him running away." Unfortunately and very sadly the victim changed direction and hence they were both back on a collision course. And thus the CPS realised they had no case. 

That would appear to be somewhat in contradiction to this:

It would appear it was so obvious that the experts concluded the complete opposite. Of course other elements of the incident may still lead to some form of misconduct finding, but that is a rather different issue.

I'm sure it is disturbing - and actually yes now I have just watched it (at least one lot of video). But there are reasons why you and I or indeed any other randoms on the internet are not called as "expert witnesses". Thank god. Even if Michael Gove believes that "People have had enough of experts", thankfully the court system thinks differently. And they will have done forensic analysis of the video, including no doubt full analysis of the movements and speeds of all the involved parties. 

Expert agreement will I'm sure have meant agreement between the experts employed by both sides: the prosecution and the defence. I think I'd rather trust their judgement. 

This is an excellent demonstration of the very bind that the CPS and IOPC are in.

We are looking at two cases involving people who were undoubtedly guilty of offences and were trying to escape the consequences, versus the police who were trying to close down the risk to the wider public and may or may not have overstepped the mark.

Those who are of a conspiracy or "them vs us" mindset will always find the most negative spin to put on it.
More disinterested observers will look at the evidence available - yes, perhaps with a more "establishment" mindset.