[Osem]

Legal definitions and technicalities aside, surely the extent to which someone can be deemed innocent depends how 'insufficient' the evidence is. Zero, almost no evidence or even concocted evidence as opposed to not quite enough evidence to meet CPS prosecution criteria.

In the case of people accused of abuse and the like, the fact that they've not been prosecuted is cold comfort if there are large swathes of the public, potential employers, sponsors, family friends and the like who (because there's been no explanation given to the contrary) assume 'no smoke without fire' and act accordingly.

Of course there's no perfect way in which to handle these matters but I feel immensely sorry for those whose lives and/or careers have been permanently tarnished because no effort has been made by the authorities to explain their decision making and thereby limit any damage to the accused's reputation.

Where cases proceed to court I believe Judges can and do qualify their reasoning and have highlighted where, for example, there's been a lack of any credible evidence to support a prosecution or even a malicious element to the allegations made. It seems harsh therefore that people who don't go to court seemingly don't have a similar opportunity to have their names officially cleared of any supposed guilt. I'm sure it's a minefield but somehow it just doesn't seem right.