The UK justice system is not like the US justice system in many ways.
For one example, ours works, most of the time.
A yob accused of robbing a driving instructor walked free from court – after a judge ruled that the victim was too believable as a witness.
Judge Jamie Tabor praised Denise Dawson as ‘honest, utterly decent and brave’ when she identified a man as her alleged attacker and gave evidence against him.
But moments later he halted the trial and ordered a not guilty verdict on Liam Perks, 20.
The judge said Mrs Dawson’s good character and compelling evidence could sway the jury, even though she had had only a fleeting glimpse of her attacker.
He said: ‘Denise Dawson was a particularly impressive witness because she showed courage, clarity of thought and was undoubtedly honest. The jury may lend more weight to her evidence than the facts allow. You cannot be sure she got it right.’
The judge said that her evidence was not enough for a conviction.
Mother-of-two Mrs Dawson, 36, called the decision ‘a kick in the teeth’.
And when the yob comes around to Ms. Dawson’s place for some retribution for testifying, she can count on, well, nothing, as she is not allowed to defend herself in her own home.
“He said: ‘Denise Dawson was a particularly impressive witness because she showed courage, clarity of thought and was undoubtedly honest. The jury may lend more weight to her evidence than the facts allow. You cannot be sure she got it right.’”
I’m suing that judge – I nearly broke my jaw on the floor after reading that crap.
In all seriousness, you toss witnesses out (or, more properly, discount their testimony) for NOT being credible. “Clarity of thought” and “undoubtedly honest” don’t comport AT ALL with “You cannot be sure she got it right.” That judge undoubtedly believes that Elvis and Jackie O. we’re kidnapped by aliens, and are spending eternity with JFK on some island paradise with Batboy.
On its face this sounds ridiculous; but judges do similar things in the U.S. as well.
If a witness gives a very compelling account, but there is little physical evidence, and a witnesses identification could be challenged; defense can move that charges be dismissed due to failure to establish the facts of the case.
It’s rare, but it happens. It is incumbent upon the judge to weigh whether the witness account would be unduly prejudicial to the jury, when the facts of the case as established would not support a conviction.
Juries often give too much weight to eye witness testimony; which is thoroughly unreliable from even the best witnesses; especially from a sympathetic witness against an unsympathetic defendant.
Obviously, we don’t know all the facts of the case here; but we should consider that if the crown prosecution service put on a poor case, that perhaps the judge did the right thing.
Most of the time prosecutors will not even file a case based on one witness testimony unless there is other witnesses or physical evidence as well. The only exception most of the time is minor assault cases where its one witness vs. a suspect and they let the jury decide.