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.

Was William Roche right to criticise the victims of abuse?

William Roache apologises for his remarks.

If you have not seen the headlines, William Roache (Ken in Coronation Street) has been slammed for making insenstive remarks to a New Zealand TV interviewer about the victims of abuser celebrities. He more or less said that young girls are drawn to celebrities, and then complain of abuse when it all goes wrong.

He is no doubt influenced by the pending prosecution of  Michael Le Vell from Coronation Street who faces 19 charges of abusing young girls and is facing trial at Preston Court, or Stuart Hall, or indeed Andrew Lancel who played Frank Foster in Corrie

He said ""Paedophilia is absolutely horrendous. Paedophiles should be sought out, rooted out and dealt with.

But there's a fringe of people who, particularly pop singers, they have these groupies, these girls, who come, they're sexually active, sexually mature, they don't ask for their birth certificate, they don't know what age they may be.

But they're certainly not grooming them and exploiting them, but they can be caught in this trap.

These people are instantly stigmatised, some will be innocent, some will not, but until such time as it's proven there should be anonymity for both."

Roache has since apologised deeply for his remarks after the child abuse charities rightfully blasted him for his remarks which suggested that victims "brought these thing on themselves".

It is not surprising that abuse has remained a secret for so many years. It is very common. It is much easier to believe that someone whom you know and like - most paedophiles are likable, as otherwise they would not be able to get close to children - is innocent rather than guilty. Whether or not those charged are innocent or guilty, is of course a matter for the courts not the media.

Generally speaking, however the problem in the country has not been the profundity of allegations, but the suppression of allegations by those in a position of power, until the victim has the courage to speak out many years later.

We must encourage those who have been abused to speak out, not silence them with suggestions that they are to blame. Generally speaking, what causes the most damage in a victim of abuse is not the abuse itself, which indeed is manifestly harmful, but the guilt surrounding the crime, and the thought that they are to blame.

Most victims think that they must have encouraged the crime by the way they were as a child, or the way they behaved, which of course cannot be true, particularly where there is a huge age difference, and the abuser is in a position of trust.

Should there by anonymity for the abuser like the victim? I don't believe so. If the abuser's name is broadcast, it often provokes other complaints against the same person, as paedophiles rarely operate in isolation. Usually they have been caught doing something that has been repeated on many occasions in the past, but never been discovered.

As an abuse lawyer I know NAPAC personally, and agree with what they say. This comment is an insult to the victims of abuse, and should be the subject of an apology. It is welcome to hear Roache apologise for what he said, and rightfully so.