Did Putin do it? Applying the CPS rules

Let’s imagine the unlikely scenario of Vladimir Putin making a private visit to Britain tomorrow. Would he be arrested at the airport, based on the existing evidence, and interrogated as to his responsibility? Of course he would deny everything, and then be released on police bail pending further enquiries.

The stage would be reached when the police would deliver their file to the CPS, who would then have to make a charging decision. In most cases they would apply the ‘50% rule’, where they would not proceed unless they thought there was a greater than 50% prospect of conviction. (This rule does not apply in cases of rape and historical sexual abuse, of course, where the vast majority of cases are put to the jury, regardless of the evidence, and juries tend to find the vast majority of them not guilty, reluctant to convict in cases of ‘he said/she said’. But I digress)

On the basis of what has been made public so far, I would expect the CPS to charge Putin and let a jury decide. Theresa May has been explicit in her condemnation of the Russian state, and when Jeremy Corbyn sounded a note of caution he was excoriated by the press for his disloyalty, despite the fact he was simply doing his job as leader of the opposition in a democratic state.

But would a jury convict Putin? The question any jury has to answer is: is the case proved beyond a reasonable doubt? Are you sure? They are asked. Come to that, what does the word sure mean in this context? Some judges and others authorities say, 90% certainty constitutes sure. We know Theresa May is sure; she made that perfectly clear last Wednesday, but how would a jury decide?

It is said that in the early 90s Russia transformed itself from a Soviet state to a criminal organisation in the space of less than two years. Under the auspices of Boris Yeltsin, that bumbling, corrupt if relatively benevolent alcoholic, the oligarchy was created. In order to build his power base, he delivered some of the biggest state industries; coal, oil, gas, infrastructure development and so on into the hands of a very few people, who overnight became some of the richest and most powerful men on Earth. In this environment the Russian mob blossomed into a kind of mini-state only marginally less powerful than the government itself. They are certainly capable of reaching out and disposing of anyone they don’t like, wherever they are. Some say they are actually indivisible from the government. That’s what people believe.

We know the Russian state developed the nerve agent responsible for the attack, and that Russia has acted in a pretty unscrupulous manner in the last few years (Ukraine, Crimea, etc), but would a jury, forced to consider the facts alone, without any political considerations, acquit Putin? I think they might.