CPS view on the McNally case

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….


About janefae

On my way from here to there
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to CPS view on the McNally case

  1. janefae says:

    Just to add a clarification note, in case anyone misreads this. They haven’t said they will NOT issue new guidance. They haven’t said they will. They have merely said they aren’t commenting on whether they are or not. Or rather, they have said they can’t answer a question on whether or not they are commenting on the issuance of new guidance.

    In other words, i think it fair to say that they have NOT gone public with any position in respect of new guidance…

  2. zoebrain says:

    “they can’t answer a question on whether or not they are commenting on the issuance of new guidance.”

    Can I quote them on that?

  3. zoebrain says:

    The consistent record, however, can be traced back only to canon 68 of the Fourth *Lateran Council (1215): “In several provinces, a difference in vestment distinguishes the Jews or the Saracens from the Christians; but in others, the confusion has reached such proportions that a difference can no longer be perceived. Hence, at times it has occurred that Christians have had sexual intercourse in error with Jewish or Saracen women and Jews or Saracens with Christian women. That the crime of such a sinful mixture shall no longer find evasion or cover under the pretext of error, we order that they [Jews and Saracens] of both sexes, in all Christian lands and at all times, shall be publicly differentiated from the rest of the population by the quality of their garment

    I think a piece of scarlet taffeta, 3 fingers broad and 6 long, would be … traditional.

  4. zoebrain says:


    Yellow’s been used; pink would cause confusion with gays. Scarlet, as in Letter, would at least be a fashion statement.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s