 |
answer text |
<p>A press release was issued by the Metropolitan Police Service which stated that
the complainant was under 16. The CPS was not a party to this release and did not
issue any other release. The CPS does not retain records of publicity resulting at
the time.</p><p> </p><p>When the case was reviewed in 2014 for charging, the complainant
and the witness clearly stated that the complainant had been 15 when the incident
took place in 1986.<del class="ministerial"> In addition Mr Virdi also said in interview
that the complainant had been 15 at the time of the incident.</del> The police summary
stated that the complainant was 15. However the complainant’s date of birth and the
date of his arrest were known and this mistake should not have been made.</p><p> </p><p>The
CPS was supplied with the memorandum of conviction referred to on 17 September 2014.<del
class="ministerial">The indictment was formally amended thereafter.</del></p><p> </p><p>No
steps were taken to publicise the fact that the charge was later amended in open court
to remove the assertion that the complainant was under 16.</p>
|
|
