Chemistry teacher Jack Goodwin lost his job at Beverley Grammar School after being charged with causing grievous bodily harm.
Mr Goodwin, whose father Chris is a former head teacher at the same school, is now appealing the academy’s decision to dismiss him.
The 36-year-old faced a seven-month ordeal waiting for his court case, only to be told on the day of his trial the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was offering no evidence.
And just why was that?
It followed the discovery of crucial CCTV evidence, which cleared Mr Goodwin over the fight in The Cross Keys pub on November 20 last year.
The ‘discovery’ of it? Where did they find it, down the back of someone’s sofa? Or are they referring to discovery in legal terms?
Surely they aren’t implying someone didn’t check it before they laid charges?
The complainant had alleged Mr Goodwin attacked himas he walked to the dance floor with his partner.However, the CCTV footage showed Mr Goodwin, of Carlton Rise, Beverley, enjoying drinks with his friends when the man approached him aggressively, threatening him.
Mr Goodwin’s barrister, Bernard Gateshill, said: “The CCTV was not received until all the interviews were done and the witnesses had made their statements.”The CCTV undermined what they said.”
Well, indeed! So why did the CPS decide to go ahead without viewing the CCTV, if that is indeed what happened?
Head of the CPS Crown Court Unit, Catherine Ainsworth, said: “The case was charged with a full understanding of the evidential issuesthat would have to be addressed at any trial.”However we believed the evidence provided a realistic prospect of conviction and we could rebut claims of self-defence.”
Pretty hard to rebut the CCTV, though? I mean, there it is, in grainy black and white…
But incredibly, their statement seems to indicate that they’d have pressed on in spite of the CCTV evidence if only the judge hadn’t seen sense and kicked them into touch:
“The Code for Crown Prosecutors states that, in order to prosecute, there must be sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.”However, for a jury to convict, that jury must be sure of the defendant’s guilt; two very different tests.
“While we believed the evidence met our test, it was clear the judge did not feel it would meet the jury’s test and gave a very clear indication that he would not allow this case to progress to the jury.
“On further review, we accepted the judge’s assessment and withdrew the case.”
They really do employ the lowest common denominator at the CPS, don’t they?