it's a mystery...

 Indeed.

I'd like to hear more details, though.

the most cogent detaisl are ' oops! some one was watching'

both for the policeman and the  CPS.

That's what I mean, though. Did the CPS know that there was a recording? Did they not think that it would be made public? 

I thought I heard (on the news today) that they did not have the mobile phone recording when the CPS decided there was not enough evidence to charge the officer. He was charged once the mobile phone recording was submitted.

I don't know the answers to your other questions.

That's what has been puzzling me, because no report that I've read has made that clear. I can't believe that the complainant/victim/suspect wouldn't have used the evidence recored on his mobile phone.  

You would have thought so.

I think the whole thing is strange too.....

Blizz I haven't read much about this case, but maybe the reports linking it to the riots means that it will get more coverage.

Maybe, but I get the impression that they are merely trying to link the victim with the rioting, without mentioning any actual evidence of him being involved.

Just seems strange.  

I think that's what I meant.  Ignore me, I haven't slept much lately.

Maybe it was a test? To see how far he would get in his claims with out it.

Having read this - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2...cism-black-man-abuse - it certainly sounds like they had the recording from the start.

"The inquiry began after the victim handed his mobile phone to a custody desk in Forest Gate police station and told officers he had been abused"

"The man's lawyer, Michael Oswald, said: "By his own efforts our client has put before the CPS exceptionally strong evidence and we share his astonishment that the CPS have reached a decision that no police officer should be prosecuted on the basis of that evidence. We do welcome their agreement to review that decision and we now await the outcome of that review."

The CPS initially said charges should not be brought against MacFarlane because the remarks did not cause the man harassment, distress or alarm.

Grace Ononiwu, deputy chief crown prosecutor for CPS London, said: "Lawyers for [the complainant] have written to the CPS and asked us to review our decision. I have considered the matter personally and directed that all the evidence should be reconsidered and a fresh decision taken by a senior lawyer with no previous involvement in this matter."

Sounds well dodgy, to me, innit! 

Makes you wonder how many other cases there that CPS succeeded in sweeping under the carpet?

It certainly does.