This is produced mostly as public service for anyone wishing to write about the topic…and please, if you’re a journo and in the process of writing about this issue, feel free to confirm with the CPS that this is indeed their official view on the case.
Though, unless they’ve taken to issuing personalised releases for your’s truly, i can assure you now that it is.
Not that there’s much of it.
After asking their press office what, if anything, their reaction to the Appeal Court ruling on Justine McNally, published last week, their response is:
A CPS spokesperson said: “The circumstances in which consent may be negated by deception are not straightforward. We will review each case referred to us on its own facts and merits in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. The implications of recent judgments will be considered in the context of any relevant cases we are reviewing.”
I did throw in a rider: could they confirm that they were looking at issuing any new guidance on the law in the light of this case? They replied that they could add nothing to the statement.
So that was a no comment on the issuing of new guidance?
They couldn’t really comment on that.
I was tempted. This felt like a game that could go on all morning. But that would be TOO mischievous for words! And yes: i get the point. Thanks, Press Office!
Irrelevant P.S. So why CAN’T i mention that the helpful person who sorted that out was called…. ? Earlier this week i was covering a Canadian story and over there (and in the US) press officers get quoted by name. Something about holding public officials to account. Whereas over here, rules dictate that the Press Office bod is almost always thrown in as an anonymous “spokesman said”. Hmmmm….