Another cherished colleague may have noticed that a UK soap-opera-star has just been acquitted of offences against an anonymous female minor. So far, so good.
Except that the girl, the only ‘witness’ and supported by no forensic evidence, remained anonymous throughout the trial, seen only by the judge and counsel. Except that we, the people, have no way of knowing whether the accused even knew the girl, spent time with her during the many years he is accused of molesting her or what possible connection she claimed to have with him.
The jury, rightly, acquitted him – probably on lack of evidence. But he didn’t have the chance to be anonymous.
So I’m worried that something is rotten in the UK judicial system. I don’t condone the alleged abuse or have any reason to believe or disbelieve either party. I’m just worried.
Boadicea's Chariot 
This must be a record. The second time within weeks that I have agreed with you. Interestingly, that great social commentator of our time, Anne Diamond said pretty much the same thing on Sky News this morning. I think the chickens are gradually coming home to roost, for all those who perceive all men to be rapists.
It has always been my contention that the heavy-handed approach to managing people’s behaviour removes any assumption that individuals have a conscience or can behave with good, or at least harmless intentions. Sometimes an affectionate pat on the bum belonging to a member of the opposite sex, is just that. Today, the law, egged on by the media and society in general, tends to see the worst in such activity and acts accordingly.
On the subject, I take issue with the judge describing the Le Vell as ‘weak and stupid’. That sort of language would not be tolerated if used towards members of minorities. If Le Vell really is weak and stupid, he cannot help that and should not be criticised for it. By the same token a people cannot help the colour of their skin their looks or their inherent abilities or lack thereof. The judge should have said that he behaved weakly and/or stupidly. There is a difference.
I agree that remaining anonymous seems a bit one sided as is but also accept the female argument that it makes it easier for victims to lodge complaints of rape or abuse. However it will inevitably lead to the lodging of some malicious accusations hoping for character assassination of the accused by the media. Should the accused be found not guilty, should they not have a right to some form of redress either from the complainant and/or the media?
Good evening, Sipu.
How right you would be if the judge had actually done this. But he didn’t.
It was his own defence barrister in his closing remarks to the jury who said that Mr Le Vell was weak, inadequate and a drunk and a bad husband but that he was not a paedophile..
Good evening, Janus.
Sorry about this and please feel free to skip all of it but you have, I am afraid, sent me into rant mode.
And struggling with formatting which is making me far from happy.. Just moved to Windows 200 and I’m on an exciting learning curve. Apparently!
‘Except that the girl, the only ‘witness’ and supported by no forensic evidence, remained anonymous throughout the trial, seen only by the judge and counsel.’
1. Your use of quotation marks around ‘witness’ is needlessly pejorative It was alleged by the prosecution that repeated abuses had been committed and that she was the only witness to those commissions. Best evidence rules apply. In the end, the jury chose to disbelieve her evidence.
2. It’s not the fault of the judicial system that there was no forensic evidence to support the prosecution. That’s down to the inept bunch of tossers who brought the prosecution in the first place.
3. I have absolutely no problem with anonymity for the alleged victims of rape, whatever their age. It was my personal experience of watching the ordeal in court of one of my elderly relatives that first brought me to that view, to be fair. it’’s probably still not wrong.
‘Except that we, the people, have no way of knowing whether the accused even knew the girl, spent time with her during the many years he is accused of molesting her or what possible connection she claimed to have with him.’
1. We, the people,have no inherent right to know anything much about the facts of any case or feel able to pontificate about them unless we were there or heard all the evidence that was led about them. That’s the way it should be. The representatives of us, the people, were empanelled as the jury. They were given the facts and delivered their verdict in possession of them.
Works for me.
2. Moving on, if you have read the newspaper reports of the trial or any of the freely available information on the Internet, there would appear to be some information on the alleged years of molestation and on possible connections. Without in any way wishing to indulge in idle speculation and in the knowledge that I could, of course, be completely mistaken:-
2.1 The accused married his wife in 1986. They had two children. One was Amelia, who was fifteen years in late 2010 when a happy family photo was published.
2.2 The alleged victim is presently seventeen years.
2.3 The alleged victim first made her allegations in 2011 after she and her mother had attended a self-help conference for victims of child abuse. Said alleged victim told her mother of that abuse saying that she now felt part of a special group.
2.4 The mother of the alleged victim then confronted the accused in person. He denied everything.
2.5 In 2011, the wife of the accused separated from him as a result of allegations of sexual abuse.
‘The jury, rightly, acquitted him – probably on lack of evidence. But he didn’t have the chance to be anonymous’.
Probably right to acquit, in my opinion, but I was not there and I will never know for certain. The jury heard all the evidence and made their decision. More power to their elbow and to the judicial system.
On anonymity, fine by me until the alleged perpetrator is charged on strong evidence of potential wrongdoing. At that point, I think that the name has to go into the public domain in case there’s more evidence out there to be adduced.
Contrariwise, I also believe very strongly that nobody should be charged just in the hope that publicising that charge will encourage others to leap on the bandwagon to shore up what might otherwise be a flawed and shaky prosecution.
It’s a fine line.
‘So I’m worried that something is rotten in the UK judicial system. I don’t condone the alleged abuse or have any reason to believe or disbelieve either party. I’m just worried.’
I’m just proud that the UK judicial system, whether Southron or Jock got it right, and, in my opinion, acquitted an innocent man.
So, not worried in the slightest.
And I fully expect that the alleged victim will sell her story to the Press as soon as she comes of age and we will then all know a lot more about this whole tragic tale than we do at the moment.
Mr Mackie, I stand corrected, I assume, as I still have not read the judge’s actual transcript. It was just the headline nthat led me to bring that charge. (For all I know, you may have invented that bit about it being the defence barrister who made those remarks; though, to be fair, I do believe you are telling the truth.) But, I am glad you agree with the sentiment.
It seems odd that the mother took the child to a group that specialises in reawakening memories of childhood and possible abuse just after the mother had split from the child’s father. Was she perhaps hoping for some damning evidence against him for use in a divorce case? In any event the child was in a fragile emotional state at that time and mothers seems to have done her no favours.
It seems very wasteful of (my) taxpayers’ money that the original CPS decision, taken by a male lawyer, not to proceed because of lack of evidence was then overturned by a female lawyer, even though no more evidence had surfaced. As to the child’s anonymity, her family and friends know who she is and word will spread. I doubt if any publication would want to touch her story when she’s 18. If I were Le Vell, I would be looking for any excuse to seek damages.
Re#6
Are we to take it that it may well be his own child?
If so, this is one of the oldest tricks in the book, generally fomented by a very unhappy spouse.
About time there was anonymity all round until proven guilty. Too many maddened lesbian types in the media these days.
Mind you, whole sad sorry story of inadequates reinforces one’s opinion that watching TV stories from the gutter do nothing for moral fibre or social development!!
I must be slow but I had not twigged that the anonymous girl might be his daughter.
Thanks to JM for his wise words.
My thanks to JM for an excellent bit of perspective there
I have read other reports which assert that a recent forensic medical examination revealed that the girl has never had (penetrative) sex. If this is correct, it makes it all the more surprising that the matter came to court.
Bearsy that kind of ‘evidence’ or lack of it must surely have been presented to the jury. Maybe it was – and maybe it influenced the verdict.