From: billy@anon.com 
  
 "JNugent"  wrote in message news:mi0hv2Fa0vt 
 1@mid.individual.net... 
 > 
 > I am not being pedantic in the slightest. The CPS does not do what you said 
 they do - 
 > which was to judge whether a crime has been committed. 
 > 
 > It considers the evidence provided by the police and makes an assessment of 
 (a) whether 
 > it is in the public interest to prosecute and (b) whether there is any 
 chance of a 
 > conviction, given the evidence. 
 > 
 > In a legal newsgroup, pointing that out is absolutely not pedantry. 
  
 Yes. But only after they've "already" judged that a crime had been 
 committed ! 
  
 Its only then, *afterwards* that they can then decide whether or not its 
 worth 
 prosecuting or not. But they first have to take that *first step*. 
  
 Unless you are seriously suggesting that the CPS considers evidence 
 provided by the police(1), then whether it is in the public interest to 
 prosecute 
 (2) and then whether there is any chance of conviction (3); in cases where 
 they 
 can't actually judge whether a crime has been actually committed or not. 
  
 bb 
  
 1. John Smith was seen walking down the road, and was acting suspiciously 
  
 2. Is it in the Public Interest to prosecute John Smith for acting 
 suspiciously ? 
  
 3  Is there any chance of a Jury convicting John Smith of acting 
 suspiciously ? 
  
 Given that no crime has actually been committed. 
  
  
 > 
 > 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)