[Closed] Rolf Harris, one conviction quashed.

Have got the biscuits in for this one..

Does make you think however..

Just leave it Rolf, go and live in a big house in the middle of nowhere and stay out of the public eye.

One down, 11 to go.

Oh hang on...

Announcing their decision on Thursday, Lord Justice Treacy, Mrs Justice McGowan and the Recorder of Preston, Judge Mark Brown, refused to give Harris permission to appeal against the rest of the convictions.

They ruled that "stepping back and looking at the totality of the evidence" on those remaining counts, "we find nothing that causes us to doubt the safety of those convictions".

I recognise my usual Harris rant there.

I'm not saying he's innocent (mostly it seems to be because to question a 'Paedo' conviction is tantamount to claiming you are one these days) but I've always had deep reservations about his convictions.

As I've said a few times before, and I've looked past just the headlines with this.

He's always maintained he's innocent, he's a free man now, served his time, and got more than enough money to last the rest of his life - there's not material reason why at the age of 87 he'd want to drag all this through the court again.

is he still here ? i thought brexit means we can send convicted immigrant criminals home 😕

P-Jay - Member

I recognise my usual Harris rant there.

I'm not saying he's innocent (mostly it seems to be because to question a 'Paedo' conviction is tantamount to claiming you are one these days) but I've always had deep reservations about his convictions.

As I've said a few times before, and I've looked past just the headlines with this.

He's always maintained he's innocent, he's a free man now, served his time, and got more than enough money to last the rest of his life - there's not material reason why at the age of 87 he'd want to drag all this through the court again.

P-Jay there are an awful lot of people out there who feel uncomfortable with the consensus on Jimmy Saville too. And others. It is hard to prove and I do not believe in the concept of no smoke without fire. I remain agnostic on his guilt or innocence, and that of Harris and others. I have not seen the evidence, they may well be guilty, importantly I am not going to join the pile on.

only If ALL the convictions are quashed and he's found not guilty after all.

Exactly, that is what I don't like. Just because lots of people make separate allegations, given the nature of the accused it makes it all the more dubious.

[url= https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/09/rolf-harris-letter-alleged-sexual-assault-victims-father ]Yep, innocent [/url]

It is well know that the letter referring to 1986 pointedly puts him in the clear of assault as she was over 16 then.
If it was my daughter I would be pissed off true, but its not illegal.
I remain skeptikal... I have no axe to grind, other than seeing truth come out. In fact I find Rolf irritating and pretty awful anyway, you kind of had to watch him for the cartoons, but I remember wishing he would shit up and just let as see the good stuff.

It is well know that the letter referring to 1986 pointedly puts him in the clear of assault as she was over 16 then.

What about the bit immediately preceeding the reference to 1986?

[u]Nothing took place in a physical way until we had moved to Highlands. I think about 1983 or 84 was the first time.[/u]

I can pinpoint a date, 1986, because I remember I was in pantomime at Richmond.

P-Jay there are an awful lot of people out there who feel uncomfortable with the consensus on Jimmy Saville too.

+1

I read about half the reports by the hospitals on Savile. (Each hospital he'd worked at/attended wrote a report.) Based on that I share your concern.

What about the bit immediately preceeding the reference to 1986?

It doesn't matter to me other than the truth that is all. I don't feel any of it was rigourous enough and as I said - given the status of the accused in these cases, there is added motivation to make accusations.

5plusn8 - Member
It is well know that the letter referring to 1986 pointedly puts him in the clear of assault as she was over 16 then.
If it was my daughter I would be pissed off true, but its not illegal.

"Arguably most damaging was a letter sent to the woman's father in the mid-1990s, in which he confessed having a long sexual relationship with her, albeit one he said began when she was 18, not, as she said, 13.

During his long stint in the witness stand, Harris was questioned at length about why he expressed abject remorse to the father for his actions, offering a little more credible explanation than he felt ending the relationship had upset the woman.

What bolstered her case was evidence showing she had given a virtually identical story to a series of counsellors and therapists for more than 15 years, based on their professional notes she allowed the court to se."

albeit one he said began when she was 18

exactly - the letter dates refer to when she was over 16.

What bolstered her case was evidence showing she had given a virtually identical story to a series of counsellors and therapists for more than 15 years, based on their professional notes she allowed the court to se

Well I was present at Butlins in Bognor when he had a grope of my ex wife and a friend.

The case was based on her telling the same story over 15 years. I just don't find that compelling.

However the jury which heard all the evidence found it not only compelling, but also sufficient to consider him guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

However the jury which heard all the evidence found it not only compelling, but also sufficient to consider him guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

You are still classed as a minor until you are 18 ...so being 16 means nothing

Possibly to restore his good name and not be labelled a paedophile and thus be able to walk down the street without being threatened, spat on etc? (only If ALL the convictions are quashed and he's found not guilty after all).

Yeah maybe, but in reality he'll never been seen as anything but a wrong 'un - he's not safe to walk down the road, not in the UK anyway - he could, sell up and ship off somewhere quiet to enjoy his remaining years.

As for the accusations (god I sound like I'm defending him here, I'm not) whilst it's "1 down, 11 to go" to terms of counts, it's 1 accuser down (because of very dubious evidence from an unreliable witness) and 3 to go -12 counts, 4 victims.

Yet one jury carried out an unsafe conviction as ruled by the appeal court. Not all convictions are watertight.

I don't see what the problem is. One of the multiple charges of which he was found guilty by the jury has been found to have been based on false (perjured?) evidence. You seem to imply that the jury was at fault for 'carrying out an unsafe conviction', but it wasn't: it simply passed its verdict based on the evidence as presented to it. It has now been proven that the evidence for that particular charge was false, and the appeal court has consequently overturned the verdict. In that respect it seems to me that the legal system has worked.

What makes you so sure?

What makes you so sure that the jury got it wrong on the other charges?

so being 16 means nothing

What makes you so sure that the jury got it wrong on the other charges?

Age of consent..16 ( the key word here being consent ) and the age at which you are classed as a minor..up to the age of 18.. are two totally seperate things ..
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_(law)

Makes no difference to sexual assault cases unless you are a teacher, copper, or some other person in a recognised position of trust. Celebrities have not had that established yet, although there are moves to change that.
Over 16 = legal to have consensual sex. There is no offence of sex with a minor over 16 in the UK.

You said yourself in a previous post that he " got done for sexual assault of a child "
At the age of 16 you are still classed as a child

Me saying "sexual assault of child" does not make anyone guilty of anything, its actually wholly dependant on just what the law says and they consider offences to be against those under 16.

I'm not sure they got it wrong, I am also not sure they got it right.

The judges who quashed this conviction disagree with you.

I'm not claiming anyone to be guilty or innocent of anything ..
I'm only explaining that in the eyes of the law you are classed as a child up to the age of 18 ..so therefore if you have been charged of a sexual assault against anyone under that age it will be against a child.
I am fully aware that [b]consensual[/b] sex can occur at the age of 16.

I'm only explaining that in the eyes of the law you are classed as a child up to the age of 18 ..so therefore if you have been charged of a sexual assault against anyone under that age it will be against a child.

Yeah but in the eyes of the law underage sex is under 16 only so you are just making up offences that do not exist. I am not really sure what you are trying to prove.

The judges who quashed this conviction disagree with you.

I'm explaining to you that it was sexual assault against a child ..which you seem to have a real difficulty understanding .
Can I quote in full your reply to my first post ..
"Not in the UK age of consent=16.
Fair enough it might still be sexual assault but he got done for sexual assault of a child "
Which if she was 16 = a child ..what don't you understand ?

I'm not sure they got it wrong, I am also not sure they got it right.

but you also say

I don't feel any of it was rigourous enough

and yet

I have not seen the evidence, they [presumably including Rolf Harris] may well be guilty

I don't really understand the point of your posts. We have a system of trial by jury, where the jury hears the evidence and is instructed only to pass a guilty verdict if it is sure beyond reasonable doubt. Very often in cases involving charges of sexual crimes like rape and indecent assault, the evidence will be one person's word against another's (which is presumably the reason for the low conviction rate for rape). In this case, the jury considered that the evidence from the prosecution witnesses was sufficient for a guilty verdict.

My statement was meant to be applied to the jury, not the judges.

The judges had new evidence showing that one of the accusers apparently lied. The jury did not hear that evidence, but I can see no reason to believe that if they had, they would not have found Harris not guilty on that particular charge.

hodgynd - Member
[b]I'm explaining to you that it was sexual assault against a child .[/b].which you seem to have a real difficulty understanding .
Can I quote in full your reply to my first post ..
"Not in the UK age of consent=16.
Fair enough it might still be sexual assault but he got done for sexual assault of a child "
Which if she was 16 = a child ..what don't you understand ?

You said yourself in a previous post that he " got done for sexual assault of a child "
At the age of 16 you are still classed as a child

This is not correct in UK law. See below from Sexual Offences Act 2003.Note that 13-15 is "sexual activity with a child", below 13 is "rape."

Section 9: Sexual activity with a child,
"(1)A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if— (a)he intentionally touches another person (B), (b)the touching is sexual, and (c)either— (i)B is under [b]16[/b] and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or (ii)B is under 13.

So if the child was 16 or over, as Harris attempted to claim, it does not come under section 9 and is not the charge of "sexual assault against a child" >
It may well be sexual assault if she was 16 or over 16 and non consensual.

Slowster - it was a discussion about the state of the Uk legal system and its approach. I don't agree with it, you were the one that brought the jury in to it, i don't give ahsot what the jury thought or were directed to do. I don't think its correct or compelling enough to prosecute on her testimony alone.
To contextualise that for you, it means I am unhappy with the judicial system.
You appear to feel that if the judicial system was followed then all is right with the world. In fact in history this has proven to be the route to tyranny. Which happily is why we have parliament and amendment to laws etc.

Ok ..I stand corrected on that point ..apologies .
It does however appear to throw up a bit of a discrepancy..

Ok ..I stand corrected on that point ..apologies .
It does however appear to throw up a bit of a discrepancy..

No problem. I agree it does seem weird, like voting, driving, drinking, and fags. And criminal responsibility.

I agree it does seem weird, like voting, driving, drinking, and fags. And criminal responsibility.

And pornography. I always found it weird that you can legally have sex at 16 but have to wait another two years before you can watch someone else doing it. You could've had two kids by the time you're 18.

I don't think its correct or compelling enough to prosecute on her testimony alone.
To contextualise that for you, it means I am unhappy with the judicial system.

Thank you for the clarification. Given, as I said, that many (most?) trials involving rape and other sexual crimes, including paedophilia, will rely fundamentally or even wholly on the testimony of the victim, I don't think many people would agree with you.

You appear to feel that if the judicial system was followed then all is right with the world. In fact in history this has proven to be the route to tyranny. Which happily is why we have parliament and amendment to laws etc.

It's generally accepted that it is the rule of law, as enforced through a judicial system, that is the main protection [i]against[/i] tyranny and of the rights of individual citizens, e.g. Magna Carta, judicial review etc. I am not aware of any tyrannies that have originated in a nation's judicial system - the typical modus operandi of tyrannies is to neuter, disband or subvert the judicial system once it has gained power, rather than to come to power via the judicial system.

And pornography. I always found it weird that you can legally have sex at 16 but have to wait another two years before you can watch someone else doing it. You could've had two kids by the time you're 18.

Perhaps the thought is that in those two years you'll gain enough diverse experience to not be traumatised by what you'll find in the murky world of pornography.

🙂

I don't think its correct or compelling enough to prosecute on her testimony alone.
To contextualise that for you, it means I am unhappy with the judicial system.

I think normally the UK Judicial system is pretty good. However there's something about the media pressure when accusations are made against celebs that mean trials are held where the evidence wouldn't normally support a trial.

If you put people on trial with rubbish evidence, sometimes juries get it wrong and mistaken guilty verdicts occur. Juries have convicted people of witchcraft. Witchcraft is a crime where, by definition, the only evidence is people's testimony which goes to show that even with rubbish evidence sometimes the prosecution get lucky. (Indeed, witch trials stopped precisely because people thought convicting people on other people's testimony alone was utterly unsafe. They still believed in witches, people still accused people of witchcraft, they just found there was never any good evidence of guilt.)

And pornography. I always found it weird that you can legally have sex at 16 but have to wait another two years before you can watch someone else doing it. You could've had two kids by the time you're 18.

And appearing in pornography. Two 16 year olds can have a sex to their hearts content. But if they get their camera out it's sex offenders register time....

I think normally the UK Judicial system is pretty good. However there's something about the media pressure when accusations are made against celebs that mean trials are held where the evidence wouldn't normally support a trial.

If you put people on trial with rubbish evidence, sometimes juries get it wrong and mistaken guilty verdicts occur. Juries have convicted people of witchcraft. Witchcraft is a crime where, by definition, the only evidence is people's testimony which goes to show that even with rubbish evidence sometimes the prosecution get lucky. (Indeed, witch trials stopped precisely because people thought convicting people on other people's testimony alone was utterly unsafe. They still believed in witches, people still accused people of witchcraft, they just found there was never any good evidence of guilt.

Exactly

However there's something about the media pressure when accusations are made against celebs that mean trials are held where the evidence wouldn't normally support a trial.

Please give us some examples of cases where this has happened and it was generally accepted after a not guilty verdict that the evidence was never strong enough in the first place to justify going to trial. If anything, recent cases involving the likes of Cliff Richard and Greville Janner suggest that the CPS do not act as you say (whereas the Police investigation of Cliff Richard and some others has appeared to be influenced by the media or consideration of the media response).

If you put people on trial with rubbish evidence, sometimes juries get it wrong and mistaken guilty verdicts occur.

If by 'rubbish evidence' you mean evidence that is patently false/unreliable and cannot stand up under scrutinity, then I would be confident that it would be exposed as such in court during the examination and cross-examination of the witnesses. If you have examples of cases where the jury accepted clearly false/unreliable evidence and convicted someone as a result, please let us have them.

However, if by 'rubbish evidence' you mean evidence that appears in court to be generally reliable, but is subsequently found to be unreliable or false because investigation reveals it to have been perjury or an expert witness giving incorrect statements (as happened with Professor Sir Roy Meadow in Sally Clark's trial), then I don't think it's right to put the blame on the jury and simply say they got it wrong: they tried the case on the evidence that was presented.

If by 'rubbish evidence' you mean evidence that is patently false/unreliable and cannot stand up under scrutinity, then I would be confident that it would be exposed as such in court during the examination and cross-examination of the witnesses. If you have examples of cases where the jury accepted clearly false/unreliable evidence and convicted someone as a result, please let us have them.

However, if by 'rubbish evidence' you mean evidence that appears in court to be generally reliable, but is subsequently found to be unreliable or false because investigation reveals it to have been perjury or an expert witness giving incorrect statements (as happened with Professor Sir Roy Meadow in Sally Clark's trial), then I don't think it's right to put the blame on the jury and simply say they got it wrong: they tried the case on the evidence that was presented.

By rubbish evidence I mean, for instance, "outofbreath claims slowster touched my ball sack when I was 15", then you prove you were in orbit around the moon for the whole year when I was 15 and I change my story and claim it was when I was 14. That evidence should not be enough to see you in court, even if a jury might buy it if it's presented with several other accusations.

If anything, recent cases involving the likes of Cliff Richard and Greville Janner suggest that the CPS do not act as you say

Agree, I think policy has changed in recent years - I suspect they realized it was blatantly unjust.

Mind you, you've picked two odd cases to cite as examples. Greville Janner was unfit to plead and Cliff is wealthy enough to intimidate the CPS with the threat of a first class defence team. (Which, I suspect, is why at the height of the celeb-groper-hysteria we didn't see 'A' List 60's rock stars in the dock for their groupie indiscretions in the days when 15 year old girls were 'grown ups' with full time jobs.)

By rubbish evidence I mean, for instance, "outofbreath claims slowster touched my ball sack when I was 15", then you prove you were in orbit around the moon for the whole year when I was 15 and I change my story and claim it was when I was 14. That evidence should not be enough to see you in court, even if a jury might buy it if it's presented with several other accusations.

Thank you for clarifying. Please provide some examples of actual cases where rubbish evidence of the kind you describe has resulted in the CPS deciding to prosecute.

Agree, I think policy has changed in recent years - I suspect they realized it was blatantly unjust.

You've changed your position from one of saying that "there's something about the media pressure when accusations are made against celebs that mean trials are held where the evidence wouldn't normally support a trial" to now saying that that is what [i]used to happen[/i]. Again, would you please give some examples of cases where this did use to happen.

you've picked two odd cases to cite as examples

They came to mind as the two most obvious recent high profile cases where the CPS came under a great deal of media attention and even outright pressure and criticism, despite which they took decisions that appeared to be based on their standard criteria (better than 50% probability of conviction, in the the public interest etc.).

There have been other high profile celeb type cases, e.g. Dave Lee Travis, but I cannot think of any that support your argument. I don't think there is any evidence whatsoever that the CPS was influenced by Cliff Richard's ability to pay for the best legal defence team possible: if anything, it looked like the Police made a mess of the investigation, as they also seemingly did with Paul Gambaccini.

Thank you for clarifying. Please provide some examples of actual cases where rubbish evidence of the kind you describe has resulted in the CPS deciding to prosecute.

One of the charges against Rolf Harris. (I'm going from memory so detail might be wrong) A woman claimed he assaulted her at an end of show party in late summer and the trauma gave her some kind of eating disorder or some such. The defence pointed out that her disorder had shown itself at the beginning of summer. So she changed the story and claimed the assault was weeks earlier. (I'm not saying she's wrong, merely offering you the example of 'rubbish evidence' you asked for.)

You've changed your position from one of saying that "there's something about the media pressure when accusations are made against celebs that mean trials are held where the evidence wouldn't normally support a trial" to now saying that that is what used to happen.

I should have used past tense in my original comment, sorry.

Again, would you please give some examples of cases where this did use to happen.

The "room service girl" charge against Stuart Hall. (Yes, I know what you're going to say, and it's irrelevant to the point.) The "Fareham" charge against Rolf Harris. At least one of the charges against Dave Lee Travis (mind you I only remember two of the charges).

I don't think there is any evidence whatsoever that the CPS was influenced by Cliff Richard's ability to pay for the best legal defence team possible: if anything, it looked like the Police made a mess of the investigation, as they also seemingly did with Paul Gambaccini.

Maybe or maybe CR and PG were both totally innocent.

I've yet to discard my theory that the A List celebs with big money were left alone because they could afford a good defence. You say there's no evidence. There's *some* circumstantial evidence, isn't there, like the fact no A List rock stars were put on trial even though they were active at a time when you left school at 15. As John Peel said, I doubt they were checking ID.

One of the charges against Rolf Harris. (I'm going from memory so detail might be wrong) A woman claimed he assaulted her at an end of show party in late summer and the trauma gave her some kind of eating disorder or some such. The defence pointed out that her disorder had shown itself at the beginning of summer. So she changed the story and claimed the assault was weeks earlier.

Fair enough. On that point it sounds like the Police investigation was not sufficiently rigorous, and even if they failed to challenge the inconsistency when interviewing the witness during the investigation, ideally the CPS would have spotted it when reviewing the file and deciding whether to prosecute. However, I presume that there was a great deal of evidence to investigate and review for the multiple charges, so I think it's less significant than if that particular witness/charge had been the only evidence/case for which Rolf Harris was tried.

The "room service girl" charge against Stuart Hall. (Yes, I know what you're going to say, and it's irrelevant to the point.) The "Fareham" charge against Rolf Harris. At least one of the charges against Dave Lee Travis (mind you I only remember two of the charges).

I think you are probably better informed of the specific details of those cases than I am, but again I note that for each of these individuals these were one charge out of many, so I find it less surprising that the charge was added to the others only for the unreliability of that particular evidence/witness to be exposed in court.

Maybe or maybe CR and PG were both totally innocent.

When I said it seemed the Police made a mess of the investigations, I didn't mean that they were probably guilty and the Police were at fault for failing to investigate properly and gather the necessary evidence for the CPS to charge, but rather that the Police conduct of the investigations was improper (tipping off the BBC to the raid on Cliff Richard's home, and seemingly dragging out Gambaccini's investigation in the hope that the publicity might encourage other accusers to come forward, rather than actually undertaking the investigation of the allegation that had been made against him in a proper and reasonably timely manner).

I've yet to discard my theory that the A List celebs with big money were left alone because they could afford a good defence. You say there's no evidence. There's *some* circumstantial evidence, isn't there, like the fact no A List rock stars were put on trial even though they were active at a time when you left school at 15. As John Peel said, I doubt they were checking ID.

I think that the prosecutions of D List presenters and DJs etc. that have happened have mostly involved sexual advances and assaults that were neither expected nor welcomed, whereas possibly it was less straightforward in the past with the groupies and fans who possibly welcomed the advances from A List rock stars. I suspect that such cases did present dilemmas for the Police - not in terms of fear of the legal defence team that immense wealth could buy, but rather in terms of getting evidence if the young person did not want to cooperate and in terms of the Police force itself probably reflecting the general societal attitudes of the day, which were evolving (i.e. until we get to the point where it is widely accepted that even if an underage person 'welcomes' and even sets out to attract such sexual advances from an A List rock star, they are underage and cannot consent). I think Bill Wyman and Mandy Smith was a case in point, which probably would be treated differently today by the Police (and be regarded today by many more members of public as criminal behaviour).