Am I the only person in the world who is becoming increasingly frustrated by the clamour of people cleared by a court shouting about their innocence and demanding compensation?

The straw that broke my camel’s back was the recent Kieran Fallon trial. The Judge declared, quite rightly under British law, that there was no case to answer following the conclusion of the prosecution case. This was followed by demands for enquiries, and general outrage that such a ridiculous case should ever have been brought.

If we look at the facts, it becomes clear that there must be serious suspicion about the activities of Fallon and his fellow defendants. I would suggest that in a civil case where the matter is decided on the balance of probability, Fallon is likely to have been found guilty.

In this country we have a wonderful legal system, whereby everyone is innocent until proved guilty. The onus is on the prosecution to prove a case beyond all doubt. This is quite right, and I hope that this basis to our democratic society remains in place for a long time to come. However, the difficulty in proving a case beyond all doubt should not be underestimated. The fact that a trial collapses, or a jury return a verdict of not guilty, should not be seen by everyone as a signal that yet another totally innocent person has been wrongly arrested, charged, and tried. It should simply be seen that the prosecution have failed to totally prove their case.

In the Fallon trial the Judge declared that there was no case to answer. This was because the prosecution did not prove the case prior to any defence case being presented. As the overall trial must prove guilt beyond all doubt, there was no point in continuing, because the only possible verdict was one of not guilty. This was the right result under our legal system, but I would much prefer Fallon and the others to accept the verdict gratefully and with relief, and then slip away quietly. They should be pleased that our legal system is so robust.

I am not saying that Fallon and the other four are definitely guilty. I do not know enough of the facts to make that judgement. What I am saying is that the circumstantial evidence is enough to suggest that there was wrong doing. The court verdict just means that it is not possible to prove whether there was or wasn’t.

A verdict of not guilty means just that. It means that guilt has not been proved. It does not necessarily mean that the defendant was totally innocent. Some defendants obviously are, but I think the numbers are relatively small. We should be grateful that we have the legal processes that we do because it prevents there being a huge number of cases whereby innocent people are locked up. My only concern is that it also creates a situation whereby a huge number of guilty people are allowed to go free.