|
What is blindingly clear and it doesn't take Select Committee to work it out, that 'Trawling' for witnesses under Crown Prosecution Service, guide lines, gave the police a licence to frame. In the article below there is mention of Thames Valley Police, now where have we heard of this lot before. Lets have a 'trawl' through the MOJUK data base and see if we can find something to fit them up with. Press the search button and what comes up: You make a lot of enemies https://www.mojuk.org.uk/bulletins/enemies.html Now we didn't say it then, but applying the CPS guidelines, we can definitely say that the arrest of Bill Thompson a lecturer at Reading University, a criminologist with an international reputation as an expert on sexual assaults on children, was a 'Black Bag' operation. An operation that was run to try and sabotage the Home Affairs Select Committee investigation into police trawling, which begins today. Bill had been quite critical of 'Trawling' and had stated emphatically; "You make a lot of enemies when you point out that not everyone accused of sexually assaulting children is guilty," "The problem with the way cases are prosecuted at the moment is that it is often not sex offenders who are being sent to prison, it is innocent people." "The police went trawling for evidence, and an unholy alliance of psychiatrists, social workers, judges and lawyers has allowed evidence which is demonstrably flawed, if not worthless, to be used to lock people up." No doubt the committee will at the end condemn 'trawling', but will it help free the hundreds of victims who are now inside, don't hold your breath or watch this column. =================================================== Trawling goes on trial, but who pays the price? By Bob Woffinden, The Times Law Reports, Tuesday 14th May 2002 The process by which police actively search for complaints of abuse against a suspect goes under the microscope today Today, the Home Affairs Select Committee begins an investigation into police trawling - in which the police actively search for complaints of abuse against a particular suspect - and the convictions obtained by such methods. But when a prosecution goes seriously awry, who among the prosecuting authorities is held responsible? That is the question to which Neil O'May of Bindman & Partners, on behalf of his client Dr Alfred Reeves, has spent many months trying to get a sensible answer. Dr Reeves, one of the country's leading child psychotherapists, was the Principal of the Mulberry Bush residential school in Standlake, Oxfordshire, from 1981 to 1991. The school had an outstanding reputation, and at any one time took in about 36 of the country's most emotionally disturbed children. After Dr Reeves retired in 1991, one boy made serious allegations against him. An investigation by Thames Valley Police concluded that the complainant was untruthful. In 1994 a second pupil made allegations; a thorough investigation by the Metropolitan Police uncovered no reliable evidence. Later, however, the pupil renewed his allegations. As a result, Thames Valley Police undertook a fresh trawling investigation, and contacted all former pupils. By the autumn of 1998 there were ten complainants, who between them alleged 38 counts of sexual assault. In May 2000 Dr Reeves was prosecuted at Oxford Crown Court. At the close of the defence case, with the number of complainants reduced to three, the defence submitted that there was no case to answer. Judge Mary Mowatt agreed and directed that Dr Reeves be acquitted of all charges. Subsequently, O'May took up a complaint against the prosecuting authorities, arguing that had the case been properly investigated it would never have got to trial; and that the protracted prosecution had led to unnecessary grief and suffering not just for Dr Reeves and his family, but also for the complainants. O'May believed that all the complaints had been produced by the investigating process itself. A number of the witnesses confirmed that interviewing officers had told them not only that allegations of sexual assault had been made against Dr Reeves, but that they, the police, believed them. Complainants appeared to have said what they thought the police wanted to hear; two gave statements alleging criminal conduct that they did not mention in court. "It is unarguable," insisted O'May, "that the police technique of contacting witnesses, and interviewing them in accordance with the protocol drawn up by the Crown Prosecution Service, generated unreliable and untruthful statements." The investigation seemed to have been directed solely towards constructing a prosecution case. Whenever there was the prospect of an allegation, that witness was interviewed at length and a statement taken; whenever a witness responded positively to Dr Reeves, no statement was taken. Similarly, the police interviewed former and serving members of staff, disregarding those who spoke highly of Dr Reeves and taking statements only from the three who offered mild criticisms. O'May also suggested that the CPS strategy, whether invoking the restricted disclosure provisions of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act, or taking out a voluntary bill of indictment to forestall an old-style committal, had been to prevent an abundance of documentary material reaching the defence. In doing so, ironically, the prosecution seemed to withhold vital evidence from itself. At a hearing on third-party disclosure, counsel for the London Borough of Ealing described the boy as "highly unreliable". He stated that he had been taken to a local doctor after being assaulted by Dr Reeves. This was probably untrue, but it had never been investigated. The prosecution abandoned the witness only on the day the trial began, causing this damaged young man, says O'May, "enormous emotional trauma". Documents showed that a second, female, witness, had made unsubstantiated sexual allegations against numerous people, including police officers. One interviewing officer had earlier concluded that she "should never be considered a reliable witness". Yet she was taken to court direct from a psychiatric hospital and then, immediately after giving evidence, dropped by the prosecution. "It was dreadful," recalled Dr Reeves, "she was totally bemused. She'd spent years in a mental hospital and had seemed to be improving, but this process took her to pieces." All the material that led to these witnesses being dropped had been available to the prosecution before Dr Reeves was ever charged. After persevering with his complaint for 18 months, O'May has finally received somewhat grudging admissions from the Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, who wrote that "the CPS have now accepted that (the decision to drop the male pupil) perhaps should have been made earlier"; and also that the mass of third-party material should have been "reviewed earlier by the prosecution". He added that "this type of case should be handled more effectively in future". What the Home Affairs Select Committee will want to know is how typical such failings have been of past trawling investigations, and whether promises of more effective procedures can now be relied upon. The author is giving evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee this morning; Neil O'May and Dr Reeves will be giving evidence next week. |