19/01/2018 Newsnight

Is there something wrong

with the way we prosecute rape?

For the fourth time in four weeks

the case against a man accused

of the crime has collapsed.

I asked the Director of Public

Prosecutions what's going on.

Some information came to us

very late in the day,

as in only just before we made

the decision to stop the case.

What should have happened

is that all should have

happened much earlier.

And for that I can only apologise.

12 months on - President Trump's

administration is just hours away

from a government shutdown tonight.

But how should we assess his year

in the White House?

We'll ask our panel to show

us their score cards.

And - as Boris Johnson announces his

latest transport vision,

a humble bridge over

the English Channel,

we despatched Steve Smith

to discover how his previous

brainwaves have gone down.

OK, so what are we doing?

Select a bicycle.

Now what?

OK, good, that was easy.

Lucky Londoners have had

or almost had a Boris Bike,

Boris Bridge, Boris Island,

the Boris Bus.

And now he's planning

a Channel crossing, it seems.

Good evening.

"Injustice anywhere",

wrote Martin Luther King,

"is a threat to justice everywhere".

Sometimes the cry of injustice

is raised by the accused,

sometimes by victims.

But this week, unusually,

we've heard it from both

sides in rape trials.

For many, today's government

announcement that it will not

challenge the parole board's

decision to free the 'black Cab

rapist' John Worboys,

is inexplicable.

Lawyers for two of Worboys' victims

have said they instead

will challenge the decision

to release him.

And around the same time

that the government

abandoned its Worboys

challenge, prosecutors in Guildford

formally dropped their case

against a man accused of rape.

Oliver Mears became the fourth man

in four weeks to have long-standing

charges against him dropped shortly

before trial because of the late

discovery of information

suggesting his innocence.

We'll hear from the Director

of Public Prosecutions in a moment,

asking whether her service -

far from defending the interests

of victims and accused alike -

is actually failing both,

but first here's Chris Cook.

Concern about the police and Crown

Prosecution Service 's handling of

French charges has been mounting on

several fronts lately, a month ago,

the police said they were reviewing

30 rape trials that were about to

start, the donor what they have

concluded, but we know this,

19-year-old Oliver Mears learned the

case against had dropped after new

evidence, diary, was nervous, and by

now he has all the spent years on

bail. -- on earth. Earlier this week

another case collapsed after photos

on a phone undermined the case,

pictures and the found by an expert

hired by the defence, and in

September a case of sexual activity

against a child was dropped after a

text showed the alleged victim had

lied about her age. And here is the

Allen, in his case the police failed

to disclose text messages which cast

doubt on vague allegations made

against him. -- rape.

In the last

few years I've worried about this

and nothing else is has ripped my

personal life.

In 2010-11 there were

4200 prosecutions for rape and two

and a half thousand led to

convictions and since then the

number of prosecutions has risen to

roughly 5200 year which has led to

around 3000 convictions, the share

prosecutions leading to convictions

has not substantially changed over

this period even as the volumes have

risen but prosecutions have also not

kept up with the rising rate in

which the crime is being reported,

and the police recorded 24,000

complaints of rape in 2015-16, there

is also the question for the CPS

around the release of John Worboys,

by the parole board. Today we learn

his knees would not be challenged by

the government although victims are

bringing a judicial review -- his

release.

After taking expert legal

advice I decided it would not be

appropriate for me as the Secretary

of State to proceed with such a

case, an honourable members will

appreciate I can't expose details of

the legal advice I have been given,

and I know this will disappoint the

victims in this case and members of

this House. Given the crimes for

which he has been convicted, on a

personal level, candidly, I share

those concerns.

John Worboys was

tried for just a small number of the

offences for which he was a suspect

and had he been convicted on further

counts whether as part of the first

trial or since he could have been

imprisoned for longer and further

evidence could have been deployed

against him before the parole board

which released him, but the

challenge for the CPS is whether

they should have tried to mount more

prosecutions against John Worboys.

All in all a lot of questions to

answer. STUDIO: Chris Cook, there.

Alison Saunders is the Director

of Public Prosecutions -

I spoke to her earlier today

and started by asking her why

the Oliver Mears case had collapsed.

It wasn't a disclosure as in late

disclosure of material

but it was about looking at the case

again, and reviewing it.

As we have a constant duty

to actually review cases and make

sure they still satisfy the code

for Crown prosecutors.

But there was some late material

that came through and when we looked

at everything again,

decided that it was not sufficient

evidence to prosecute.

What should have happened

in that case, of course,

was that it all should have

happened much earlier.

And I quite understand and I can

imagine how distressing it must be

for everybody involved,

all of the parties.

Two years of waiting.

Absolutely.

And that shouldn't have happened.

And that's why we are looking at,

how we make sure that disclosure,

which hasn't been going right

across the whole system,

how that really should happen much

earlier in the proceedings.

In terms of what happened

in the Mears case, when you said

that information arose at a certain

point later on, was that during that

two years we're talking

about or was it late

on in the original investigation?

Some information came to us

very late in the day,

as in only just before we made

the decision to stop the case.

What should have happened

is that all should have

happened much earlier.

And for that I can only apologise

to all who were involved in the case

because we should have made sure

we had done that earlier

and taken those decisions

earlier to stop the case.

Is it essentially, in your

view, a resource issue?

I don't think it's

just a resource issue.

I think there are real issues

for all of us to think about,

how do we deal with this new issue.

We all wonder around with phones

or tablets or some sort of device.

We live our lives on these things

now and they're often

as big as computers.

So, it's about, how do

we possibly look through...

How do the police look

through all of that?

How do we find that needle in a sort

of huge data haystack?

And how do we know

that it's relevant?

And also, if it's your telephone,

or your tablet, do you want people

going through your whole life

when actually some of it is not

relevant and is never

going to be relevant?

You said resources aren't

the only issue, clearly,

but are you concerned

that the police don't

actually have the resources,

to go through phones and social

media material in the quantities

they would have to to give both

sides in a case like this

a fair trial?

I certainly think if it was

a blanket, you have to look

at all this material,

we wouldn't have the resources

and cases wouldn't be brought before

the court because it would just

drown us in material.

Which is where we have to balance

what we can do with a fair trial.

Which is why that targeted aspect

to look at what's relevant

and making sure that when we get

what's relevant we disclose that.

So the defendant and dean know

what and why, so they can question

it if we miss something

or if they know

something that we don't.

Now, clearly, what you're trying

to do in these cases is look

at the rights of the accused

but we've also seen in the news

a very different equation

with the rights of victims.

In the John Worboys

case, for example.

Hearing what the Justice

Secretary said today...

I know you don't run the parole

board, you look at it as an informed

observer, but do you understand why

they won't give their reasons

in a case like the Worboys?

As far as the parole

board is concerned,

it is outside my authority.

I don't oversee it, I don't

understand why the decisions are not

transparent and that's a matter

for the government.

The Lord Chancellor has said he's

going to look into that.

One of the things which is hard

for people to understand

about the Worboys case is why only

such a small proportion

of the original victims

saw their cases coming into court.

Do you think more of them should

have been prosecuted?

More of those cases.

We've looked back over the decision

and we had somewhere in the region

of 83 individual complainants

referred to us.

We prosecuted 14 of those.

Of those 83 that were originally

referred to us, we couldn't

prosecute the rest because there

wasn't sufficient evidence.

It did not satisfy the code

for Crown prosecutors.

Where we have to have a realistic

prospect of conviction.

So, we couldn't do that.

There were three cases

which were referred whilst

we were in trial which we did not

prosecute for public interest

grounds because we felt it wasn't

going to add to the sentence and it

may complicate the case

that was already before

the court.

So, I think we made the right

decisions from the evidence

that we had at that time,

having looked at

the review decision.

Is there any way that either those

three or cases that might have

emerged subsequently,

could still be put

forward for prosecution?

I mean, we have certainly said

that we will review any cases

that the police might

want to refer to us.

And indeed we are talking

to the police about,

if there is any action that can be

taken or giving them advice

if they are asking for it.

So, if we get anything

new or we look at it again,

if we are asked to look at it again,

we will look at it in

accordance with the code.

But just to be clear,

you're saying that is an ongoing

conversation with the police

in this case?

It is an ongoing conversation,

but of course, if we decided

there wasn't sufficient evidence,

we've got to have evidence

to take before the courts.

There will have to be something new.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

That

was the Director of Public

Prosecutions.

The Trump administration is a year

old, and never a dull moment.

As if to prove that very point,

on the eve of his anniversary

tonight his administration looks

to be hours away from a government

shutdown as it struggles to pass

an emergency budget bill.

But while the hacks who try to cover

Trump's presidency reel from one

tweet or leak-inspired moment

to another - sometimes

several times in a day -

what has he actually achieved?

And how far has he been able

to satisfy the voters who sent him

to Washington with the mission

to 'make America great again'?

The language may be coarser

and the lines between business

and presidential interests blurred,

but perhaps the most salient feature

of this first year is the degree

to which his achievements have

rested on going with the grain

in Washington rather

than draining its swamp.

The President of the United States!

One year on, and wrangling over

budgets has left the federal

government on the verge

of a close down.

It's drama, but it's also business

as usual in Washington.

Presidents Obama and Clinton

faced the same crisis.

And it's a measure of the power

that holding the purse

strings gives Congress,

whatever Trump might have said

on the campaign trail.

Where better to escape the pressures

of the office than the golf course?

A lot of pressure,

so, a lot of golfing.

As for breaking the mould

in presidential communications,

there's been plenty of that,

too, often via early

morning tweet storms.

That hasn't bolstered historically

low approval ratings, of course.

The most immediate salient thing

to say about Donald Trump's approval

rating is that it is

historically bad.

A lot of people get

a honeymoon period.

The best he had was basically

breaking even to start off with.

His approval ratings have been more

stable throughout the year

than is traditionally something that

you'd see because they didn't have

much further to sink.

His base does remain solid

even if he hasn't built that wall.

And the popularity is

partly due to roaring

economic performance.

Make America great again,

and that's what it is.

That's what it is, just make

America great again!

He will, it's going to be great.

We will make America great again.

He's a good businessman and that's

what the country needs.

To get the thing,

get the country back

out of debt and get

a lot of people working.

I think that's what he's doing.

It's the economy, stupid,

did you ever hear that one?

It's the economy.

It is indeed.

He's doing something

that no one other

politician has ever done he's

keeping his promises to the people.

And partly due to delivery

on deregulation and tax cuts.

The area where, right

from the outset of his

presidency, it was clear

that the Republican control of

Congress would help rather

than hinder the president.

On Russia, for example,

hawkish senators have made

it impossible for Trump to improve

relations with the Kremlin.

With sanctions staying

in place and the

US going further in

arming the Ukrainians

than Barack Obama did.

And when it comes to military

or intelligence matters, the spooks

have also pushed back on the Russia

policy and the Pentagon has largely

written its own rules for escalating

counterterrorist operations.

In reality, his policy

is actually not

particularly radical.

His policies don't really

reflect the rhetoric

that you see on his Twitter account.

In fact we've seen a considerable

amount of continuity from the Obama

administration.

So while the President's

people might point to

wins on the tax code

or deregulation, what is really

notable is how far things have

strayed the same.

Despite the

campaign promises to drain the swamp

all radically change the way power

is bargained inside the Beltway.

So how do things look from America -

and what can we expect for the next

three years of Trump's presidency?

Joining me from Boston is former

New York Times executive

editor Jill Abramson.

In Miami is Matthew Oberly

from the Young Republican

National Federation.

And we'll also be speaking

to Wendy Osefo, a political

commentator who worked

on the Obama Administration's

antipoverty initiative -

she's in Washington.

Jill, can I start with you? Do you

see a single redeeming thing about

the Trump presidency during this

first year?

Very little. The strong

economy obviously is a big plus, but

I don't really think President Trump

can take much credit for it. And if

the economy is doing so well, why on

earth do we need a big tax cut for

the billionaire class? I don't see

much, and, you know, I really feel

in the past year that as President

Donald Trump has shown himself

completely unsuitable to the job.

And I disagree with the idea in your

piece that things haven't changed

very much. Because he pulled out of

the Paris treaty and the

environment... It's been a disaster.

He named a new US Supreme Court

justice, but one who is extremely

right-wing.

That is also an area

where the congressional Republican

caucus... Congress was keen to work

with him on, whereas in other areas,

where they don't wish to cooperate

or can't agree an answer, like

health care, he hasn't achieved

change.

Thank goodness health care

wasn't repealed. Although through

other means they have tried to take

away some of the major provisions of

the Obama health care law. And I

think America's standing in the

world has been hurt during the past

year.

How would you measure that?

I

would measure it...

In what index

would you measure that hurts to

America's standing?

Well I mentioned

a minute ago the Paris Accord,

pulling out of that. America had

been one of the leaders in the world

towards reducing green gases. And

now it's not.

OK...

I think that he

is undependable and people are

scared to death about what's

happening in North Korea right now.

Matthew, I believe, I do want to ask

you about North Korea, but before we

go on to that, surely, clearly, you

like the man, you think is achieving

something. Surely you would concede

he is a uniquely divisive and

polarising figure.

I would say he is

a unique figure, I wouldn't call him

a deeply polarising figure. If we

want to really get down to

measurable results, the president

has taken, basically warped, the

regulatory burden that stops small

businesses and entrepreneurs from

succeeding and put money back into

the middle class, into their

pockets, be it $500, $200 or

thousands of dollars. Talk about

health care, people who are healthy,

who might not need health care, are

going to have that penalty put back

in their pockets. I truly believe

that the American way is to allow

the people to decide if, you know,

they want to have health care or

not. I wouldn't call him a

polarising figure. I think a lot of

where we see the polarisation coming

from is the media. You've got media

on the left and right. I truly

believe that... I can't, I can't

agree that he's a polarising...

On

the North Korea point that Jill

made, we were looking at some CBS

polling before we came on air saying

59% of Americans disapprove of the

way he's dealing with that issue.

It's a thing that scares a lot of

people including Republicans, isn't

it? The land which he has used on

North Korea?

I hate to say it but

when the leader, dictator of North

Korea, can just lob missiles over a

sovereign nation such as Japan, I

truly think we need to hammer down

some tough language and reminds this

guy that that's not allowable on the

global stage. I think his rhetoric

is strong.

Can you briefly afford to

do that kind of tough talking with

two nuclear armed states facing off

against one another where

misconception could lead to

disaster?

It could lead to

disaster... That is a vague

statement. We have to remind him,

frankly we have to remind other

dictators that this behaviour isn't

allowable and we will do what is

needed to make sure not only America

is safe, but our citizens are safe

when they go abroad. I think he's

using tough language.

I want to

bring in Wendy from Washington.

Looking at this from a Democrat

supporter bases, as you do, how are

you going to win in the midterm is

coming up this year? Wouldn't you

expect the Democratic party to be

showing more strongly in the polls?

Given how bad the President's

approval rating is. What is missing

in their campaign?

The Democratic

party is showing strongly in the

polls because the president has had

a dreadful year. He's endorsed a

child molester in Alabama, waged a

war against a free press. He had

dilapidated his own local party.

He's given the thumbs up to white to

premises and continues to put a hole

in our democracy. It's very

difficult to do a good job. It's

easy to tell something apart. Our

president has chosen the latter.

That is the issue. When it comes to

midterms the Democrats are going to

forge ahead. When we look at the

special collections that have

happened thus far, in Virginia the

Democrats won, in Alabama the

Democrats won, these are ruby red

states that were not supposed to be

won at all by the Democrats. If the

special collections are any

indication of the tidal wave coming

for the Republican Party, the

midterms are going to be something

in which you will see a big turn.

There is lots of Republican seats up

for re-election. If they want to

keep their seats I would suggest

they tell their party president to

put a button on it and stop with

this and move forward with policy.

He pointed to one or two areas of

the country where the Democrats are

showing well, in special

collections. Clearly they were

pretty hammered back in the last

nationwide election. What is missing

at national level? Where is the

leadership? There is no one clearly

embodying the Democratic challenge

to the president at national level.

We have leadership. What you're

going to C in 2020 is what we saw in

2016. You will see a wave of

Democrats come up and say they want

to invigorate the nation by running.

But what's going to happen, and I'm

going to call this ahead of time, is

anyone who decide they are going to

lead the Democratic party has to

embody more than just a movement,

they have to ignite to people, they

have to put that same hokum that

same feeling of change, similar to

that of Barack Obama. What we have

seen with Donald Trump is he's been

highly divisive, he's got a lot of

rhetoric that has a power country,

so whoever wins this election is

somebody who brings us together and

forges a message of unity and hope.

That's what we need right now in a

leader.

Matthew, can I ask you, a

lot of Republicans one speaks to on

imply that if the party takes a

beating in the midterms it'll be

over in terms of the Trump

presidency. It'll be hobbled from

that point onwards. How concerned

are you buy that possibility?

You

want to talk about the government

shutting down. Americans need nine

Democrats, Americans, not President

Trump or Paul Ryan, America needs

nine Congressman to keep Democrats,

to keep the government from shutting

down while the GOP holds a majority

in Congress. We can't do it without

Democrats. Americans can't do it

without Democrats, and I think that

is the real important point to make

right now. We need to prevent this

government shuts down and the

Republicans can't stop Chuck Schumer

from shutting it down. We need

Democrats to rise up and work for

Americans. And prevent the

government from shutting down. In

2018 and we're going to be able, as

the Republican party, to go forward

and say, you know, the Democrats

didn't rise up to prevent a

government shutdown, the Democrats

didn't rise up and enable those able

to protect us to protect us.

Jill

Abramson let's come back to this

discussion we had with Wendy about

the leadership. Of course you expect

a front runner to emerge when the

presidential nomination race gets

underway in earnest. But you can

send...

After the 2018 elections.

.

Indeed but are you concerned there

don't seem to be the obvious

national figures and contenders

pushing their way to the front, that

there isn't that national opposition

to President Trump right now?

I

think that is a good point. I'm not

here as a partisan spokesman, so I'm

not going to say it alarms me, but

Democrats in much of the country,

that have been so shocked and

disappointed by President Trump,

they're aching for some inspiration.

They really are. And you're right,

so far there isn't unifying

Democratic a candidate who has urged

to get people very excited. But

there is still, you know, quite a

bit of time.

bit of time.

Thank you all very much

for joining us, Jill Abramson,

Matthew Oberly and Wendy Osefo.

Say what you like about

Boris Johnson, he's never been

at a loss for an idea on how to get

people from A to B.

Londoners are familiar with 'Boris

bikes', 'Boris island' -

site of a proposed airport -

and the former Mayor's enthusiasm

for a 'garden bridge' over

the Thames, since scrapped.

But it seems the Foreign Secretary

excelled himself during an encounter

with the French president this week,

raising the prospect of a fixed

link across the Channel,

a dream which has tantalised

generations of engineers

and decision-makers.

Number ten has let it be known that

Theresa May isn't about to cut

the ribbon on such a scheme anytime

soon - but could a cross-channel

bridge go the distance?

It's going to be a stretch,

cautions Stephen Smith.

The great Victorian engineers built

railways in the cities.

The foundations of our industry

and infrastructure.

But not even they got around

to a grand bridge over

the sea to France.

But the Foreign Secretary,

at home, at sea or on

land is apparently thinking big.

Lucky Londoners have had, or almost

had, a Boris bike, Boris Bridge,

Boris Island, the Boris bus, and now

he is planning a channel crossing,

it seems.

So is he the Telford,

the Kingdom Brunel of our day?

Or is this a bridge too far?

The idea of a bridge over

the channel isn't new.

Here is something from

a 70s drawing board.

This design from the 80s imagines

a bridge running out into

the sea as far as a man-made island.

From there, a corkscrew chamber led

to an underwater tunnel.

With matching infrastructure

on the French side.

And this is how the design team

here at Newsnight see

the Boris bridge.

In sharp contrast to recent

high-level thinking, this

has just been thrown together.

We're an island nation with a proud

history of maritime engineering.

Is a bridge to France beyond us?

In principle it is feasible,

because there have

been similar project

in

the past.

I should mention perhaps

the best-known one is probably the

one in Louisiana

in the United States.

Which is a bridge with a total

length of about 25 miles.

So it is really more

or less the size

we are talking about for

the English Channel.

Boris Johnson has form

with transport ideas.

One design critic

gave us his review.

I think vision is good

and I enjoy follies wherever

they may be found, but I'm afraid

Boris's record as a practical

innovator in infrastructure

is not all that great.

I mean the famous Boris bikes,

I mean they are quite

good fun, but they have made zero

impact on the amenity and facility

of Londoners actually

trying to do work.

They are only used by lost tourists

who don't know where they

are going.

And then of course there

is Boris Island the famous airport,

which again, like the supposed

future Channel bridge, the Boris

airport could be built.

There is nothing wrong with that.

But they were completely

unfunded, the

questions of infrastructure of roads

and railways necessary to service

it.

Downing Street says there are no

specific plans for Mr Johnson's

Channel link, in other words, its

chances are zip. It is a wistful

might have been. A Bridge of sighs.

The unabridged Steve Smith.

That's about all we have time

for tonight, but we leave

you with the heartwarming tale

of Transport Scotland's fleet

of salt spraying heroes,

their snow-defeating kings

of the road, the gritters.

Thousands were gripped today

by an online map showing the exact

location of the lorries -

some of which have some

imaginative names.

So we say goodnight now

to Gritty Gritty Bang Bang,

Luke SnowWalker, Mrs McGritter

and of course, Sir Andy Flurry -

who are out again this evening

keeping the roads safe.

Goodnight.