From across the pond, a peculiar story of compensable error.

The Crown Prosecution Service has agreed to pay £16,000 compensation to a woman over the handling of a serious sexual assault allegation that breached her human rights, it has been reported.

The woman, whose name is given as Josephine, was the alleged victim of a “serious sexual assault,” as opposed I suppose to the unserious sort of sexual assault.  The prosecution didn’t work out as planned.

Josephine, who was in her twenties at the time of the assault, said she had been assured that she would be able to give evidence from behind a screen. When this was not the case she was forced to face the man she had accused of serious sexual assault.

While in the witness box she let slip a detail about the man’s past. The prejudicial information led to the trial being halted.

A letter from a case worker later explained that there would be no retrial and that reportedly blamed the victim for the initial collapse of the trial describing her evidence as “implausible”.

Putting aside the screen, concealing the accuser from the accused so that she need not face the person whose life is at risk, and putting aside her “slip” about the man’s past, muddling the evidence of this alleged crime with the defendant’s propensity to be a criminal, the bottom line was that the prosecution decided against a retrial because her testimony was “implausible”.  That can happen, you know.  Even when it’s something as volatile as a serious sexual assault, sometimes alleged victims don’t come off well.  Sometimes, they aren’t even real victims.

But not this time.

The CPS acknowledged that Josephine’s human rights had been breached in the handling of the case.

Her lawyer, Tony Murphy, said: “This case shines a light on how the Crown Prosecution Service prosecute crimes of sexual violence and it reveals an alarming lack of will and skill on behalf of the prosecutors in this case.

Not only did Josephine get an apology from the CPS, but she got £16,000 to boot.  Whether that salves the pain of a serious sexual assault is unknown, but it’s better than a nasty letter and a cold shoulder.

What’s remarkable isn’t the “alarming lack of will and skill” (a nice sound bite, Tony), but that the Crown Prosecution Service acknowledged this to be a violation of Josephine’s “human rights.”  Not merely acknowledged, but a human right with a price tag.

Contrast this with the failing here of compensable rights.  Not some amorphous “human rights,” but the ones enumerated in our Constitution.  There is the woman giving birth while shackled to her hospital bed,  $1.  Should the cops burst into your home to search without a warrant, or even with a warrant but they turned left in the hallway rather than right an broke down your door instead of the drug dealer across the hall.  Heck, you would be lucky to get your door fixed.

It’s unclear what this means.  Is the United Kingdom more sensitive to rights than the United States?  Do they realize that a right without a remedy is worthless?  Or is this a victim’s rights thing, as compared to the rights of a defendant, who won’t get squat should his rights be violated?  After all, the alleged victim did let “slip” a nasty detail about the defendant’s past, sufficient to cause a mistrial, and there’s no word here about his being paid for the mistake, even though he was put through the halted trial.

Regardless of whether this sensitivity to rights reflects a broader appreciation of a government’s responsibility toward the groundlings who suffer their deprivation, or is a one-sided preference for the chosen few, it stands in rather stark contrast to what we can expect here.  Regardless of victim or defendant, the violation of rights isn’t likely to get an apology or a voluntary check out of any American prosecutor.  Maybe this is just equal justice, but on this side of the pond, everybody can expect to get screwed.

H/T Dissent