Declares the Petitioners concern that the Pharmacy White Paper could result in many rural practices having to stop dispensing medicines to their patients; and further declares that the dispensing of medicines by such practices is often vital to patients who live in more isolated areas.
The consultation on a number of proposals for legislative and structural reform to National Health Service pharmaceutical services arising from the White Paper Pharmacy in England: Building on strengthsdelivering the future closed on 20th November 2008.
As part of this consultation, we put forward options for possible reform of GP dispensing arrangements on which we sought views. We are aware of the strength of the responses we received on the various options for amending the criteria for dispensing by doctors. We have taken into account the views expressed and have announced that there will be no change to the current arrangements on GPs dispensing medicines to their patients.
Declares that too many people are wrongly convicted because the law allows too much weight to be given to the word of one or more people, without other more tangible evidence to support the conviction; believes it is wrong that the jury only have to be persuaded that the defendant is guilty, and that this leaves the system open
to abuse and puts people at risk of being convicted because someone has lied to the court or is innocently wrong in their assertions, and the person who tells the lie and secures the conviction can then claim compensation from the Criminal Injury Compensation Board.
One of the key features of a criminal trial is that the defence have the opportunity to test the prosecutions evidence by cross-examination. Furthermore, in criminal proceedings the prosecution must prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubta very high standard of proof. Additionally the judge has the discretion, where the evidence is uncorroborated and there are concerns that it is unreliable, to warn the jury to exercise caution whenever he or she considers it appropriate to do so, whether in respect of an accomplice or a complainant or any other witness.
The Crown Prosecution Service takes decisions to prosecute with great care. When prosecutors make charging decisions they must apply the test in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. The evidential stage of the test requires that Crown Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each defendant on each charge. Also when deciding whether there is enough evidence to prosecute, Crown Prosecutors must consider whether the evidence can be used and is reliable. Amongst the questions that they should consider is whether there are concerns over the accuracy or credibility of a witness.
Section 32 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 abolished the rule that a trial judge must warn the jury of the dangers of acting on the uncorroborated evidence of an alleged accomplice or victim of a sexual offence. However judges still retain the discretion to warn the jury to exercise caution whenever they consider it appropriate to do so, whether in respect of an accomplice or a complainant or any other witness.