... so now this case in the UK is being dropped to the smirking delight of the defendant who is a serial sex offender and who was convicted last year of snatching a 6 year old girl from her bath.
The alleged victim in this case, who was 15 at the time of the alleged rape apparently reported her assault -- nearly a decade after it happened -- after the defendant made the news for kidnapping and raping a 6 year old.
This is unacceptable since it means that in the UK once a sex offender is arrested and makes the news that this person will be able to get away with any other previous sex crimes which hadn't been reported.
The horrific nature of the crime he was convicted of is serving as his protection against being held accountable for other crimes he's committed. That's a dangerous lesson to teach sex offenders. More than that, it's a dangerous lesson to teach all criminals because if this is prejudicial in a rape case it is prejudicial in all cases. This sort of action isn't likely to stay contained in rape cases once it does the trick for one defense attorney.
The next time, the alleged victim could have reported the rape immediately and then recognized the rapist after a highly-publicized arrest. This case might set a precedent that would mean a case with a clear DNA match might be thrown out.
Prejudicial is prejudicial.
There are ways of giving a defendant like this one a fair trial. If a rape victim in the USA can be expected to describe what happened to her without saying "rape" then a rape victim in the UK can describe seeing her rapist in the news without giving the details of the crime the man was convicted of.