Sir Stephen Richards has been acquitted today of “flashing” on commuter trains. This was an extraordinary case, but also one which typifies the way witnessing or being the victim (if that’s the right word in a case like this) of an http://www.gooakley.com/ offence, or being charged with one, affects your life deeply.
Of course I presume Sir Stephen is innocent: the court’s acquitted him, and he’s entitled to that. But two people are left damaged and no doubt angered by this case: Sir Stephen, who, quite unfairly, will never be able command the public respect he did before this trial; and the woman who complained, who no one doubts was serially flashed at by someone, who no doubt feels she identified the right man, that she was disbelieved, and that an injustice has been done. I’m glad for her that she’s anonymous, because it will at least save her from suspicions that she lied and public ridicule for apparently not having been believed.
Of course, this damage might have been avoided if the British Transport Police had done Ray Ban outlet their job properly, and obtained the CCTV footage of what happened on the train, instead of deciding they were “too busy”. Too busy? A Court of Appeal judge is accused of preying on women in this nasty and stupid way, and the BTP is too busy to do the one small thing (ring up the train operating company…) they can do to shed further light on the alleged incidents? The tape might have shown nothing significant, of course; but equally, it might have settled the matter beyond doubt either way, and I think the public was entitled to know with more certainty than the presumption of innocence alone gives that (or if you like, whether) Sir Stephen was innocent of this offence.
Frankly, I think someone at the BTP should be resigning today.
You make a telling point. Any thoughts on why the CPS brought the prosecution.
I assume the lawyers at the CPS were aware of the lack of evidence in this matter – and the failure of the BTP to obtain the CCTV tape.
A very unsatisfactory way of proceeding. As you say – two lives ruined because of incompetence.
I agree – totally unsatisfactory. Actually I think I can understand the CPS decision on prosecution, though: if you believe the witness and feel sure her identification was correct, I think you could convict; I’ve never been one of those lawyers who likes taking issues of fact away from a jury (or from the magistrate in this case) where there is evidence capable of being believed.
Of course an element of the thinking might have been that they might be criticised for blocking the prosecution of a judge for a sex offence – it’d be quite wrong to be influenced by that thought, of course, but also impossible not to suspect it influenced the CPS at least subconsciously.