A man accused of rape and fighting for his life....

IN Portsmouth Crown Court this week, a man in his forties was stood in the dock in court 7 fighting for his life.

Watched by his mother and his wife, this man was accused of raping a six-year-old girl. She was their next door neighbour and, according to the prosecution, the assault took place in the girl’s bedroom while her mother was next door and her father was downstairs drinking.

The court heard that the defendant, who regularly came round for a session of drinks and bawdy football talk with his neighbour, had gone upstairs where he raped the girl, pulling down her “Barbie” pants.

It was sordid stuff and at times very uncomfortable to listen to as the girl gave video evidence, and a recording was played of her police interview.

The big issue, however, is that this alleged rape took place eight years ago. It had only come to light when the girl, now 14, confided in some school friends. They told her teachers, the school contacted the police and parents, and so the man was charged with a rape going back to 2006.

I had taken my post-graduate journalism students to the court hearing. Beforehand, we had been warned about the nature of the case, but they were all keen to see the criminal justice system in full swing.

Afterwards, we discussed the opening day of the trial, and I warned the students that the defendant was very likely to be found not guilty. There was no way, I said, without any physical evidence or a witness, that any jury could find the man in the dock guilty “beyond reasonable doubt”.

On Friday, the 12-man jury – seven men and five women – agreed. And the man, who had endured these charges hanging over him for the past 12 months, wasn’t transported in a prison van to begin a long jail sentence. Instead, he could rebuild his life.

I have enormous discomfort about prosecuting historical sex cases. That doesn’t mean where there is strong, physical evidence, that a conviction should be sought. Absolutely, we should be sending out a strong message to anyone guilty of a sexual assault of any nature that society won’t tolerate such behaviour.

But where a case is built solely on circumstantial evidence, when it is founded on historical allegations, then despite the need to see justice being done I don’t know how the Crown Prosecution Service can go ahead. If fact, justice isn’t being served well.

At times, with the spate of high-profile sex cases, it is as if the CPS have been going on a prosecution fishing expedition to satisfy public need. Sadly, they’ve been left disappointed.

The Radio DJ Paul Gambaccini learnt earlier this month that he will not face any action over alleged sex offences dating back to the early 1980s. He was arrested under the Operation Yewtree operation. The 65-year-old said he had suffered “12 months of trauma”.

The comedian Freddie Starr suffered the same fate in February this year. He pledged to bring Operation Yewtree “down to its knees” after his fourth arrest over historical sex abuse allegations.

At the time, he blasted Scotland Yard for using him as a scapegoat after failing to convict Jimmy Savile when he was alive.

And then there is the case of the DJ Dave Lee Travis, finally convicted after two trials of a sex offence. One has to wonder on the basis of the allegation whether justice was seen to be done in prosecuting him for what he now carries a conviction.

 

Dave Lee Travis is not a sex offender, he’s not a rapist, to put it bluntly he was a dirty old man who liked a grope. Rightly or wrongly, that was the culture of the day. But was it right to prosecute him and waste millions of pounds in tax-payers' money? I don't think so.

Having been on domestic violence courses through magistrates’ training, and also learned about the consequences of rape, I’m not in any way diminishing the need to prosecute the perpetrators.

Rape and sexual offences are abhorrent. But, such is the emotive nature of the crime, surely we have to ensure the bar is set high in terms of pursuing a conviction ensuring the quality of evidence is gold standard.

You can’t prosecute someone based on one allegation, an allegation which may be carried with malice or even to gain attention on behalf of the alleged victim.

For the guy who was in the dock at Portsmouth Crown Court, we will never know whether anything did happen. But it doesn’t make it right to convict him on circumstantial evidence.

For him, the stain will stick on his character. The “no smoke without fire” principle with hang over him from some quarters for the rest of his life, and unfairly so.

It’s about time we got a sense of perspective with sex offences. It's about time we didn't pursue knee-jerk witch-hunts in a splatter-gun way with the hope of nailing a few people on the basis of what might be a spurious and tainted allegation.