I can see both sides of the argument but it’s appears that

The psychologists and other professionals no longer deem him a risk to the public, but the judges are saying that had they been allowed to question him about and see information about alleged offences that he’s not been convicted of then they may have concluded he’s lying. It seems a very grey area because if you conclude he’s lying on that basis you are still effectively saying he’s guilty of those offences when he’s not been convicted.

It certainly raises some interesting legal issues (unless of course you are not sad like me and interested in this stuff).

The CPS should really have just charged him with the extra offences, they’ve had 10 years to do so.

Posted By: Jim, Mar 28, 19:07:29