Imagine that.
You would love to hear my views on what exactly? I thought I expressed them clearly.
I'm a lawyer. I really enjoy my work but it does mean I tend to look at things a little differently from others. Whilst I'm able to look at the 'evidence', I struggle to call it such as really it's just noise in the press, and reach my own conclusion the professional in me would have been keen to have the evidence presented in a criminal or civil court. Only then could we make an informed decision on the facts. In my work, we are taught not to cast aspersions without being privy to all the required information. Granted, privately I have my own opinion on the man and what I believe to be true. Nevertheless, I would have been keen to see all that could have transpired. There is a legal test to be met for criminal charges to be authorised in a criminal case, clearly not achieved in this case. In a civil case, the plaintiff must prove their case on the balance of probabilities, a greater chance of it happening than not, a much lower threshold. If found guilty the plaintiff would have been awarded substantial damages but of course, there is a risk. It depends on what justice looks like for the individual. I believe there is also a gagging order now so we shall never actually know what really happened.
In conclusion, I have had many dealing with similar cases and with varying outcomes. Not all defendants are innocent and not all plaintiffs are telling the truth.
