I put this on the other thread earlier.
Thinking about the title of this topic, I was struck by the principal tests of the CPS in England (which I have modified slightly to fit the Ranson case) -
1 Is there enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of winning the case?
2 Is it in the public interest to go ahead?
In using the phrase 'good faith', is Wright simply addressing the first test and saying that the government thought that there was enough evidence, and so that was OK? He talks about reputational damage, but doesn't really address any public interest points as such.
Even with good faith wrapping the situation, the AG's Chambers (particularly the in-house lawyer Ms Heeley), Magson and the planning and conduct of the case are hammered.
Another point, which MF members have already mentioned, is the appearance again of Jonny Michael. Ranson contacted him personally, so must either have known him and/or assumed that he had the power to intervene. Was she another of his nepotistic placements in our health system like Magson? Are there others?
PS - it might be easier if the mods locked the shorter thread.