Sir Clement Freud alleged sex abuse

Prior to a new documentary which airs on Wednesday 15^th June, the BBC has reported allegations of abuse against the late broadcaster and MP Sir Clement Freud between the late 1940s and 1970s.

One of the alleged victims, Sylvia Woosley, who first met Freud when she was 10 told the ITV Exposure programme that he abused her for years.  A second anonymous woman, claimed he abused her as a child and raped her when she was 18.
To read more click here.

CICA Attitude to Abuse Victims a disgrace

“Compensation has been reduced for more than 400 sex abuse victims in Britain who later committed criminal offences, the BBC has learnt.” was the headline:-

Sanchia Berg of the BBC made a Freedom of Information Request to the CICA who could not produce all the results she wanted, because she spoke to me before the story was published. She asked if ACAL(Association of Child Abuse Lawyers) had any statistics as to how many abuse cases are turned down because the applicant has committed criminal offences. Because in the past, we have had experience of a biased approach, we usually opt for the alternative civil system, and thus only have anecdotal opinions.

To read more see my blog on our Abuselaw Website

Was Rolf Harris Mr Jekyl or Mr Hyde?

Rolf Harris when arrested.

Today has been so hectic ever since the jury returned guilty verdicts on all 12 counts and convicted Rolf Harris of abuse of 4 girls. I have discussed the story on Radio 5 Live, then BBC News 24, Radio Wales, and Radio London, followed tomorrow by a clip for Breakfast tomorrow.

The theme remains the same - Harris was a Jekyl and Hyde character who fooled everyone. Savile was the same, but perhaps not as genial. Some said Savile was a frightening individual who you didn't cross, not only because he had been an all in wrestler in contrast to Harris whose hobby was less physical in the form of art.

The likenesses and differences are:-

Likenesses

• They both did endless work for charity.
• They both worked with children.
• They both entertained children.
• They both used their media profile to hoodwink victims into a state of trust.
• They both had connections with many individuals very high up in Society - Savile with Margaret Thatcher, and Harris painted the Queen.
• They both worked in the field of popular music which inevitably brought about meetings with adoring fans including children.
• Neither was discovered until in their 80's, Savile obviously after death.

Differences

• Savile is dead - obviously thus making it easier to report what happened without fear of a libel suit.
• Savile used his connections with those in authority to shield himself from action by victims eg. Leeds Police, and threats of action by using his "mates" in authority.
• Savile appears to have liked all types of victims including
• Boys
• Girls
• The disabled
• Hospital Patients
• Dead Bodies (yes believe it or not he was seen to visit the mortuaries in various hospitals including Leeds and Haute de la Garenne in Jersey)
• Harris on the other hand only appears to have had an interest in the female sex according to the media stories.
• Savile was feared in his lifetime, and known to be an "odd" character who never married, whereas Harris appears to have lived a "normal" family life.

So what will the sentence be on Friday - not as long as the victims want, I predict. The judge will be hampered again by the law which puts a cap on sentences which relate to offences taking place a long time ago when the punishment was different, on the basis that if Harris had been prosecuted at the time of the offences, the sentence would have been more lenient.

William Roache is on Trial not Ken Barlow

William Roache

The latest information on the "Ken Barlow" trial is that the jury are to put out of their mind who the actor plays on TV, and should try the case according to the evidence.

As I am a lawyer who specialises in abuse cases on behalf of victims, the topic of celebrity abusers comes up in conversation quite often.

It is quite obvious that most of the public make a judgement instantly on whether or not he is guilty or innocent. That opinion is obviously based upon what they hear or see in the media, coupled with what they already know about the person already.

How can any jury who has watched William Roache play Ken Barlow every week make a judgement on his guilt or innocence and insulate themselves from the world of soap operas?

A classic example of pre-judging guilt and innocence based upon someone's public persona is Rolf Harris. Several allegations have been made against him yet he is not the sort of person most members of the public will deem to be a sex offender. He has painted portraits of the queen, done programs about animals, and recorded various catchy tunes which have appeared in the hit parade.

Ken Barlow on Coronation Street is in intelligent, well meaning, calm, yet philanderous person who has produced some rather unstable children, one of whom is an alcoholic, and the other of whom has spent time in prison for murder. What is the real William Roache like? Will the jury judge him on the evidence, or what they know of him.

Take the celebrities from the Street who have appeared in Court so far - Kevin Webster or to give him his real name Michael Le Vell was acquitted of all charges, and made a speech outside Court thanking everyone for supporting him and saying he was going for a drink.Did the jury try the case on the evidence, or what they already thought they knew about the Defendant from his appearance on TV? We will never know. Certainly the alleged victims of the alleged child sex offences will be devastated by the result.

What would be the position if someone who has played the parts of evil villains on TV appeared before the Crown Court alleged to be a sex offender? Could the jury dispel their preconceived opinion that he was an evil villain from their mind? An interesting conundrum.

Stuart Hall went public during his trial saying that the whole process was causing him immense grief, and ruining his life. He denied the offences completely. He then turned turkey, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced. The CPS then went back to Court to ask for and were granted an increased sentence.

Certainly celebrities have the advantage over those without any experience of speaking in public in that:-

1. They have training in diction and pretending to be someone else.
2. They have their reputation with the public to use to their advantage.
3. They have fans who will write to them saying they support them. This no doubt gives them confidence and more self belief.

On the other hand

1. They have a much greater reputation to protect than others.
2. The media will be all over their case trying to put as much of their trial in the public eye as possible, which can be a good or bad thing depending on what is reported.
3. If they lose the trial, that is the end of their career.
4. They will be under much more pressure to win their case than the average criminal defendant.

Personally I am tempted to say that it is impossible to try a celebrity fairly. Although the jury will try to simply examine the evidence, when it comes to some judgement upon which they are unsure, it is almost impossible not to let their preconceived ideas of what the actor who plays the part is like on TV cloud their opinion.

Let us hope their is a fair trial of William Roache. I am sure that is what all the lawyers and the judge are trying to achieve.

Maybe we should have a similar system to the States where there are jury vetting agents, cross examination of jurors, and so on. Whilst the judge does ask questions to make sure the jury are not biased at all, the comment by the judge in the recent trial tells a thousand tales about the dangers which are unavoidable in this case.

Will the victims claim compensation after the case, or will they have had enough after the criminal trial and want to put the whole thing behind them? Only time will tell.

The Police interview of Jimmy Savile shows what a manipulative paedophile he was

Savile with OBE

When you read the recently released interview by Surrey Police in 2009 of Jimmy Savile with the hindsight we have now, it is almost a textbook exercise in the manipulative powers of the paedophile. At the time, he was Sir Jimmy Savile OBE who gave heaps of cash to charity, and did benedictory work for the disadvantaged with friends in high places and influence with media and politicians alike. So how could anybody possibly believe that throughout his life, he abused under age girls, and boys?

Well, what are the necessary tools which a paedophile needs to hoodwink, groom and then abuse a child?
Fundamentally, child abuse is an opportunity and desire by a sex offender to abuse whatever power he has to entrap a victim.

1. Charm - no child will go off with a dirty old man in a mack.
2. Persuasion - but not in a dominant or bombastic way - with guile and intrigue, possibly some humour.
3. Manipulative - he has to have this in spades. Not only does he manipulate his victim, but also all those around the child who might protect him/her from harm. So how does the manipulation work?

Now let us go back to the Savile interview. How does "Sir" Jimmy manipulate his interviewer at the police force who were interviewing him?

1. Savile had persuaded them not to interview him at the police station, which presumably was in Surrey, but rather on his home turf at Stoke Mandeville Hospital, where he was more in control of the situation than he would have been if he had been interviewed at a police station in Surrey. The HMIC said it was wrong to allow Savile to choose where and when his ‘ineffective’ interview took place.
2. He quickly takes over the conversation, in order to avoid having to answer difficult questions by simply making a speech, which was nothing more than a self image boasting rant, designed to convince his interviewers that all the serious allegations of sexual abuse did not amount to anything they should even investigate.
3. His tone is overtly casual, relaxed and fluent, but has an undercurrent of malevolence and threats, which are intended to hint at how much power he has to make life difficult for the police if they misguidedly decided to prosecute him. 
4. He says he has friends in high places not only with the police in Leeds whom he shares his threatening letters. He implies they share his view that these girls are just after some money by making false allegations against him.
5. He refers to the girls as midges who chase him, and  "you can brush them away like midges and it's not much of a price to pay for the lifestyle." What greater image of ultimate power is there than a large human swatting a midge. This just makes him sound more powerful.
6. He refers in the interview to being able to sue newspapers who cross him, or indeed anyone who gets in his way. He even suggests that they police could end up taken by Savile to the Old Bailey if they are not careful.
7. Ironically he emphasises his power, belittles his victims saying they are like flies who buzz around him for attention, whom he can pick and choose at will by virtue of his incredibly powerful celebrity status.
8. In typical paedophile fashion, he blames the victims for lieing and simply being interested in his celebrity status and money, which they need for "Christmas". He says his blackmail and threats do get worse at the season of "goodwill".

If one were to write a textbook on how to be a successful paedophile in complete control of everything around you, to enable you to abuse children at will, then the life of Savile and this police interview are a good but frightening example of how to go about it.

Abuse of power is a very dangerous thing. Countries have been dictated and fallen because of its evil side effects. It is like any quality. In extremis it is frightening.