I've redrafted this post over months rather than weeks and put it on hold several times as the subject matter is fraught. But I think there is currently insufficient evidence that the British legal system is operating satisfactorily in a controversial area. And finally it seems the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police agrees with me (see today's BBC reports).
But first a question. Who is the odd one out from Cliff Richard, Paul Gambaccini, Leon Brittan, Ted Heath, Lord Bramhall, Harvey Proctor, Jim Davidson, Jimmy Tarbuck, Roy Harper, William Roache, Chris Evans, Richard Westwood, Leonard Hawkes and David Bryant?
Well, it depends how you count odd one out. They are nearly all well known people, celebrities mainly, who have been accused of historical (i.e. a long time ago*) sexual abuse of young people. Some cases have been brought to court, others were dropped, generally after a protracted delay. Common factors included the police hanging the accused individuals out to dry while they saw if more "victims" came forward after the initial publicity. This tactic isn't surprising as it helped to convict Stuart Hall by weight of evidence.
Let me nail my flag to the mast here. I think most, if not all, of the above people were treated heinously. The police and BBC did some kind of weird - and to my mind inappropriate if not illegal - deal which led to Richard's house being raided live on TV. Yes the BBC threatened to run the story so the police did the deal. But why on earth the police didn't threaten the BBC Director General with jail for obstructing a police investigation if the BBC went ahead I don't know. I would think this even if Richard had proved to be guilty. It will be interesting to see how Harry Webb's case against the BBC and police progresses. I expect they will make a settlement offer.
Richard hasn't been the only case like this. When the football manager Harry Redknapp was arrested for tax offences, which a friendly jury subsequently cleared him of, the police arrived very early in the morning (something like 5am) and newspaper reporters, who must have been tipped off, were there to observe.
Brittain, Heath, Bramhall and Proctor were all accused by the fantasist known to us as "Nick" in what became the Met's "Operation Midland" which eventually collapsed after costing us £2.5M. The Met chief, Bernard Hogan-Howe, has finally (8 November) apologised to Bramhall, Proctor and Leon Brittain's widow for the errors made in Operation Midland and for the fact that the investigation went on for much longer than necessary. "Nick", remember, seemed to think that children could have been killed by supposed paedophiles in 1980s Britain with no-one noticing they were missing. It was "Nick" whose evidence was publicly called "credible and true" by a senior police officer. How it would be called "true" without either an admission of guilt or a conviction in court (or, indeed, any bodies) one can only wonder. These were remarkable failures by the police which I contend were obvious at the time. Indeed the "credible and true" statement took my breath away at the time - why didn't Hogan-Howe intervene then? He must have realised his man had overstepped the mark. Maybe he thought it was just slack use of language (but why no reprimand or correction issued at the time?) It turns out it was indicative of faulty thinking throughout the investigation.
"Nick" finally had his evidence debunked by a retired high court judge who investigated Operation Midland for the Met. Hogan-Howe released a summary of the report but so far the Met has declined to publish the full report (see Times reference, which also suggests that the day of the US presidential election was chosen to release the summary, in an attempt to "bury" the bad news. Didn't work, featured on BBC tv news and prominently on the website). Among the more remarkable revelations were claims that detectives were unaware that Nick had previously used another pseudonym to make separate abuse claims in a television documentary.
But "Nick" doesn't seem to be the only fantasist amongst the people who have made allegations. One of Cliff Richard's accusers claimed the singer skated - on roller skates - into the shop he was working in, committed the crime and skated out again. Only to skate back in a while later for a repeat. Forgive me for being sceptical about these claims, but they don't seem to pass the ho-ho test. Neither, at least from what was published, did the evidence against musician Roy Harper (see post of 23 September).
And news management does seem to be part of the way the police operate. Paul Gambaccini, who said he had been targeted by an accuser because he was the "famous person in his neighbourhood", alleged that the police extended his bail 7 times, costing him £200k in lost income and legal fees, at times that correlated with developments in Operation Yewtree, such as the sentencing of Max Clifford, the conviction of Rolf Harris and the date on which Dave Lee Travis's trial was due to end. Gambaccini, being cross examined by a Commons Select Committee, agreed with the suggestion that the police were making a concerted attempt to link him with unconnected cases and that the CPS had "sat" on his case. Alison Saunders, the hard to like DPP, denied this, telling the MPs that it was "an extreme case in which a lot of issues had to be bottomed out". So extreme that, 8 months after the CPS received the papers from the police, they decided there was no evidence to proceed.
It certainly seemed that the police and CPS were ensuring they couldn't be accused of not taking allegations seriously, even if that meant they did nothing for long periods to make it seem as if they had investigated thoroughly just by elapsed time.
Is a different approach now being adopted? Westwood and Hawkes were in the Tremeloes and endured a three-year “nightmare” after being accused of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old in a hotel after a gig in Chester in 1968. Prosecutors eventually decided new evidence had come to light more than three years after the investigation launched. After reviewing inconsistencies in the now-adult woman’s evidence, the single count of indecent assault faced by each man was dropped when a judge ordered both men be found not guilty after the prosecutor said there was no evidence to offer. (Eh? How can that actually get to court?) However, more recently an investigation into Chris Evans's egregious blokeish behaviour was dropped much more quickly, after only 2 months.
I suppose it's understandable that, after the awful crimes of Saville, Rolf Harris and Hall were revealed, the system would over-react. And there have been other convictions - Max Clifford and DJ Chris Denning, for example (no, I don't remember him either but he was on Radio 1 at the start).
What all of this seems to show us that, while a Cyril Smith, Hall, Harris or Saville could hide in plain sight back then as allegations, if made, were dismissed or maybe even covered up, woe betide any clebrity now who is the subject of such allegations. It seems the CPS will only look at the evidence for a prosecution and not weigh the evidence against. Or maybe they feel they daren't not prosecute celebrity cases. Either way, it doesn't feel like justice.
Anyway, here's the answer to my question. David Bryant, is the real odd one out in the above list. Hall, Harris, Clifford and others were found guilty and got what they deserved. Harper's case went to court: a jury found him not guilty on most charges and the others were then dropped. Westwood and Hawkes were taken to court but no evidence offered. However, most of my list above didn't get their day in court to "prove" their innocence. The charges were dropped for "insufficient evidence", which always feels a bit like "not proven". But David Bryant's case did get to court and he was found guilty. And then acquitted 3 years later.
Bryant is the odd one out in my list because he isn't famous, although he would have been a minor local celebrity as station commander for the Fire Service in Christchurch, Dorset. Bryant's accuser, David Day, now aged 53, had gone to police in 2012 claiming he had been raped by Mr Bryant and another firefighter, who is now dead, at the fire station in Christchurch on a single unspecified date some time between 1976 and 1978. Mr Day said he was aged about 14 at the time of the alleged attack. Bryant, who the court heard was of ‘impeccable character’ and had no previous criminal record, was convicted in 2013. He was sentenced initially to six years in jail. Day, who waived his right to anonymity in a series of newspaper interviews after the conviction, was finally exposed as a liar after detective work by Mrs Bryant and a team of lawyers and private investigators, who worked on the case for free. After Mr Bryant’s conviction, Mr Day launched civil proceedings against Mr Bryant and against Dorset County Council, which ran the fire service. In the civil proceedings he claimed aggravated damages because he said the assault had ruined his chances of appearing at the Olympics in 1984. Day had claimed to be a boxing champion with a record better than Muhammad Ali, and to have given up his place on the British boxing team at the Los Angeles Olympics in 1984 because of the trauma of the sexual assault. This bizarre and eminently checkable claim was a complete fabrication. As, according to Dominic Lawson, was the accusation that Day had been raped on the fire station pool table. After all the fire station didn't have a pool table until a decade after the alleged assault supposedly took place.
But get this - the CPS appealed the sentence as being too light and it was increased to eight-and-a-half years. Subsequently, "fresh material", as the judge called it, was put to the appeal court, which included information that “over a period from 2000 to 2010 the complainant in this case had to seek medical attention from his GP in relation to what can only be described as his being a chronic liar”. The "fresh" evidence - as well as other false claims - were never put to the jury at the original trial. The CPS said that "new evidence recently came to light about the credibility of a key witness which fatally undermined the prosecution case. Based on this new evidence, we did not seek to oppose the appeal.” Hmm. I hope that's right, else the CPS sat on evidence which was helpful to the defence because it weakened the prosecution case. I'm no lawyer but I thought that wasn't supposed to happen. The recent Ched Evans appeal, whatever you think of that unsavoury story, had echoes of the same issues. As for Bryant, the poor bugger (oops, that's not apposite is it?) - fancy serving over 2 years in jail and looking at eight and a half, knowing the case against you was a complete fabrication. A much clearer cut case than Evans, I'll give you.
I accept that this is a difficult area. Standards and practices of the past were clearly inadequate and we are feeling our way to a new modus operandi. One thing is clear: we are not likely to get much clarified by the train wreck Butler Sloss/Wolff/Goddard/Jay child abuse inquiry. Even if we do it won't be soon. I don't know the answer to this, but the police and CPS starting to act professionally again would, I'm sure, be a good start.
*The reason I clarified the meaning of "historical" is that some folk use "historic" to mean old, instead of famous, important or otherwise outstanding. "Your sales data might be historical but it certainly isn't historic" a former colleague was wont to say in pointing out this common error. Saville's crimes, on the other hand, could reasonably be called both historical and historic on number alone.
Actually, having been not happy enough with this draft to publish it when the Cliff Richard case was rumbling, then again when it was dropped, the above is hardly changed from what I wrote back then. So it must be a statement of the bleeding obvious.
Errors in Met's VIP paedophile probe BBC website 8 November 2016 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37912886
Police and prosecutors criticised after firefighter wrongly convicted of sex attacks solely on testimony of fantasist Telegraph 20 July 2016 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/20/police-and-prosecutors-criticised-after-firefighter-wrongly-conv/
Key witness for VIP sex inquiry was unreliable http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/key-witness-for-vip-sex-inquiry-was-unreliable-6n3v0snbz
Gambaccini reference https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/03/paul-gambaccini-police-flypaper-for-almost-a-year-abuse-mps-bail-limit
Dominic Lawson reference: "Hero fireman jailed by a fantasist's lies" Daily Mail 25 July 2016.
No comments:
Post a Comment