Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Sun Jul 06, 2014 10:32 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

Again, lets be correct about this as this is how uneducated mob justice starts - there was no evidence presented in court to suggest that he used indecent images of children for sexual gratification and the evidence that was gathered during investigation was not used simply because it would not have proved such a charge - newspapers have a lot to answer for in their court reporting.

The CPS prosecuting barrister used the information in her speech in court at the sentencing hearing, even naming the websites used to download the pictures from. Just as the defence can put forward good mitigating points such as charity work etc so the prosecution are entitled to refer to other aggravating points. I doubt they would have been referred to in open court as an aggravating factor if there was much doubt over the validity of them.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Sun Jul 06, 2014 10:53 am  

Derwent wrote:

The CPS prosecuting barrister used the information in her speech in court at the sentencing hearing, even naming the websites used to download the pictures from. Just as the defence can put forward good mitigating points such as charity work etc so the prosecution are entitled to refer to other aggravating points. I doubt they would have been referred to in open court as an aggravating factor if there was much doubt over the validity of them.

And then they dropped the evidence like a hot potato without giving the defence a chance to say "prove the age of the girls in those 30 photos" it is quite alarming just how much conjecture is allowed in these historic allegation trials.

Just so everyone is clear I'm not defending Harris or what he has been convicted of, but what we see now in the press is a desperate search for some padding out of the detail rather than sticking to the facts of the case - 33 photos of a pornographic nature were found on his PC but none of them involved young children and no evidence could be offered as to whether the girls were underage in terms of British law, those are the facts but the fable will be spread by a media desperate for some salacious gossip that child porn was found.

The news media are not reliable enough to report on cases such as this.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:13 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

And then they dropped the evidence like a hot potato without giving the defence a chance to say "prove the age of the girls in those 30 photos" it is quite alarming just how much conjecture is allowed in these historic allegation trials.

That's not how I understood it. What they said was they were not going to proceed with charges as it was not in the public interest as it would have had no effect on the overall sentence. The matter was allowed to lie on file until after the trial, it was only after conviction that the CPS decided not to charge with further offences. Had he been found not guilty he may well have been charged with the indecent images.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Sun Jul 06, 2014 12:15 pm  

Derwent wrote:

That's not how I understood it. What they said was they were not going to proceed with charges as it was not in the public interest as it would have had no effect on the overall sentence. The matter was allowed to lie on file until after the trial, it was only after conviction that the CPS decided not to charge with further offences. Had he been found not guilty he may well have been charged with the indecent images.

Easier said than done which is why some newspapers carried the story on Friday and named the web sites, they are non UK sites involving what was believed to be eastern european girls who, whilst looking to be teenagers may or may not have been under age, they made a point in court of suggesting that the names of the sites meant that the girls were under age but of course that is no sort of evidence at all - sum total of which is that he has been convicted on various degrees of indecent assaults and not child porn.

Not yet anyway.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Sun Jul 06, 2014 4:49 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

And then they dropped the evidence like a hot potato without giving the defence a chance to say "prove the age of the girls in those 30 photos" it is quite alarming just how much conjecture is allowed in these historic allegation trials.

Just so everyone is clear I'm not defending Harris or what he has been convicted of, but what we see now in the press is a desperate search for some padding out of the detail rather than sticking to the facts of the case - 33 photos of a pornographic nature were found on his PC but none of them involved young children and no evidence could be offered as to whether the girls were underage in terms of British law, those are the facts but the fable will be spread by a media desperate for some salacious gossip that child porn was found.

The news media are not reliable enough to report on cases such as this.

Harris was charged with the 4 indecent images charges in September 2013. The dates to which the images were made, which simply means viewed, is in the last couple of years.

The sites were commercial porn sites. The CPS knows that they need to verify the ages of the "children". They didn't do it. IMO because they know damned well that these were actually women pretending to be teen girls and knew they weren't child porn images. I am guessing here, but I wouldn't be surprised if the CPS included these charges in with the others to pad their weak case, knowing that the pictures would never get into court, but it's that extra bit of mud to sling.

The fact that these pictures made it into the closing arguments just shows what a sorry excuse for a trial it has been. The 3 year gap between alleged crime dates, bringing the issue of pics in closing arguments that have not been brought before the court, pretty much all all the case involving his daughters friend would have been thrown out of any sensible court in Britain.

During the trial there was new evidence offered by a member of the public used to virtually prove a case (which should have been used to throw a case out). As a result of that we had the introduction of a new defence witness of Sue Cook, who tweeted that she was involved in Star Games and she had no clue where she was either.

IMO we've got a ridiculous situation where twitter and the public are invading the court rooms for a ridiculous trial by media scenario. The absolute shoddy cases presented by the CPS reminds me of times when anyone with an Irish accent could spend decades in prison simply because the cops and state needed to catch someone.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Sun Jul 06, 2014 5:00 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

The sites were commercial porn sites. The CPS knows that they need to verify the ages of the "children". They didn't do it. IMO because they know damned well that these were actually women pretending to be teen girls and knew they weren't child porn images. I am guessing here, but I wouldn't be surprised if the CPS included these charges in with the others to pad their weak case, knowing that the pictures would never get into court, but it's that extra bit of mud to sling

Well I don't profess to be an expert on the law in the regard but according to the prosecuting QC it is actually a criminal offence to even knowingly search for such material, even if the actual material viewed turns out not to be images of children.

Just as the defence were entitled to bring up Harris' charity work and other things as evidence of good character, the prosecution are entitled to put forward evidence of bad character in the mitigation hearing so of course they were going to bring it up.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Sun Jul 06, 2014 7:15 pm  

Derwent wrote:

Well I don't profess to be an expert on the law in the regard but according to the prosecuting QC it is actually a criminal offence to even knowingly search for such material, even if the actual material viewed turns out not to be images of children.

What search terms did he use ?
Or did they not disclose those and thus miss an easy conviction on searching for child porn ?


I also note that Vanessa Feltz is now declaring that he slipped his hand into her knickers live on Channel 4's Big Breakfast Show but despite the fact that it was in a room packed with production crew and Harris' wife not to mention how many millions watching on TV, she didn't think that she should mention it at the time - she does say that she told police after he'd been arrested but they said they didn't have time to include it in the case - that was a year before it went to court - live on TV, recorded in archives, open and shut case of indecent assault and they didn't have 12 months to work on it.

It gets more and more incredible the more you learn.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Sun Jul 06, 2014 7:47 pm  

What I have found quite peverse post-sentencing is the fact that it only requires one person, with absolutely no connection to those being tried or their victims, to complain that a sentence was too lenient. There will always be some bugger who thinks any sentence too lenient and if they complain, the review process is automatically triggered. IMO, any complaint on lenient sentencing should come from a victim, or if the victim is deceased, then a close family member and not just some random nut-job

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Sun Jul 06, 2014 7:50 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

I also note that Vanessa Feltz is now declaring that he slipped his hand into her knickers live on Channel 4's Big Breakfast Show but despite the fact that it was in a room packed with production crew and Harris' wife not to mention how many millions watching on TV, she didn't think that she should mention it at the time - she does say that she told police after he'd been arrested but they said they didn't have time to include it in the case - that was a year before it went to court - live on TV, recorded in archives, open and shut case of indecent assault and they didn't have 12 months to work on it.

It gets more and more incredible the more you learn.

Sorry but slipping his hand into her drawers would surely trigger a plea of "not of sound mind"

[DaveO]

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Sun Jul 06, 2014 8:33 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

What I have found quite peverse post-sentencing is the fact that it only requires one person, with absolutely no connection to those being tried or their victims, to complain that a sentence was too lenient. There will always be some bugger who thinks any sentence too lenient and if they complain, the review process is automatically triggered. IMO, any complaint on lenient sentencing should come from a victim, or if the victim is deceased, then a close family member and not just some random nut-job

I agree. With the outrage stoacked up by the press such as the false impression that he had pronographic images of kids on his computer it's hardly surprising if the general public can raise an objection someone will but what is worse is the Attorney General is going to have to have a very thick skin not to feel backed into a corner and raise the tariff sue to all this publicity. This idea of doing this also politicizes the sentencing of criminals as the Attorney General is a political appointment himself and he is a non cabinet minister of the government.

His job is to represent the Government on legal matters and offer it legal advice and what having him review sentences does is put him above the courts when in fact as basically the Governments solicitor he should be subservient to the courts. If the political climate dictates increasing sentences on celebrities convicted of such offenses is popular how can a government minister as opposed to a judge be objective?