[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

Actually it does mean they're innocent. They are innocent because they were not proven guilty. I know that in the Jim Davidson case, he proved that the car in which he was supposed to have raped someone was 200 miles away on that night. I don't know much about the other cases but presumably they weren't let off without any evidence being presented in their defence.

Maybe it means they're innocent in the eyes of the law, that doesn't mean they're actually innocent though.

I know in Cliff Richards case it was dropped because of lack of evidence, not because he had evidence to prove he hadn't done anything. So therefore its a "one word against another" that doesn't mean he's innocent

Prosecutors announced on Thursday morning that there was "insufficient evidence to prosecute"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...er-prosecutor/