[kergonath]

That’s the expected British understatement, it’s just how the police communicates there.

[soneil]

I think it's the correct terminology here. The police believe and suspect, the court try and prove. Arrests are always made 'on suspicion of'.

[nerdponx]

This is the correct language from the perspective of how things ought to be done, and journalists in the USA would do well to follow this example.

[mytailorisrich]

Yes, if only because that'd be libel outherwise unless the person is ultimately convicted.

In addition, an arrest does not guarantee that the person will even be charged.

[benj111]

No the prosecution try to prove.

The the judge, judges.

Well that's how it's 'supposed' to work.

[toyg]

> Then the judge, judges.

Unless it's a criminal offense and the defendant invoked his right to being judged by a jury.

[amiga386]

Even then, the judge is still doing judging.

The jury determine if the defendant is guilty of charges or not, based on the evidence given during the trial. The judge still judges the admissibility of evidence, the conduct of the prosecution and defence, etc., and also determines the punishment or sentence, based on sentencing guidelines, if the jury find the defendant guilty of any charges.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/about-cps/how-a-criminal-case-works

[kergonath]

Exactly. Personally I find that really good: factual and rational without being unnecessarily accusatory.