Man squeezes woman's boobs too hard - it ends up in court - should it have?

MrPudding

No it shouldn't, are you mad!

222233 wrote: »

I have the exact same question, I'm by no means a legal expert of any kind but would physical assault cases even get as far as court without medical documents to support injury claims?

I just feel that parameters change when the word "sexual" is involved, I'm not really sure why because a physical assault can have just as devastating an impact.

Generally, there will be evidence submitted. Whilst there is no specific mention of evidence being provided, there is nothing to suggest evidence was not provided... We are a little light on information. She may have taken pictures herself, or had friends take them. If they were still apparent when she reported the incident to the police then the police would likely have taken pictures.

I would expect that the magistrates did see some pictures of the injuries, but I don't think it would necessarily be essential. Both parties will have testified and been cross-examined by the other's legal representative. As has already been pointed out, the court felt that the victim was truthful and the accused was not.

It is also worth noting that there is no requirement for there to be any physical indication that an assault took place for it to be held that one did take place.

MrP

sbsquarepants

No it shouldn't, are you mad!

222233 wrote: »

I have the exact same question, I'm by no means a legal expert of any kind but would physical assault cases even get as far as court without medical documents to support injury claims?

I just feel that parameters change when the word "sexual" is involved, I'm not really sure why because a physical assault can have just as devastating an impact.

There was enough evidence of some sort to satisfy a judge!

I can't imagine that she just rocked up in court and said "see him, he hurt my diddies" and the poor sod got stuck on the sex offenders register!

flatty

sbsquarepants wrote: »

222233 wrote: »

I have the exact same question, I'm by no means a legal expert of any kind but would physical assault cases even get as far as court without medical documents to support injury claims?

I just feel that parameters change when the word "sexual" is involved, I'm not really sure why because a physical assault can have just as devastating an impact.

There was enough evidence of some sort to satisfy a judge!

I can't imagine that she just rocked up in court and said "see him, he hurt my diddies" and the poor sod got stuck on the sex offenders register!

It may have been a magistrate rather than a judge.

MrPudding

No it shouldn't, are you mad!

flatty wrote: »

It may have been a magistrate rather than a judge.

It was a magistrate, well, more likely 3 of them.

MrP

MrPudding

No it shouldn't, are you mad!

sbsquarepants wrote: »

There was enough evidence of some sort to satisfy a judge!

I can't imagine that she just rocked up in court and said "see him, he hurt my diddies" and the poor sod got stuck on the sex offenders register!

This is exactly the point quite a few people seem to be ignoring. The scant details in the article have not convinced them there was any wrong doing, but the magistrates did not convict on the basis of a sh1tty newspaper article. They did it on the basis of the evidence that was put before them. of course, that does not seem to stop some people telling us they know the magistrates were wrong.

MrP

Roger Hassenforder

Tigger wrote: »

briget shaw is the magistrate

I know!

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105178363&postcount=208

MrPudding

I thought no but then I seen his picture and changed my mind. I know, unfair, but life's unfair.

MrPudding wrote: »

This is exactly the point quite a few people seem to be ignoring. The scant details in the article have not convinced them there was any wrong doing, but the magistrates did not convict on the basis of a sh1tty newspaper article. They did it on the basis of the evidence that was put before them. of course, that does not seem to stop some people telling us they know the magistrates were wrong.

MrP

Not really. The bias in the law regarding the genders and the perception of who is to blame for violence is pretty well known. Men are often assumed to be the aggressor when both genders are involved regardless of claims otherwise. Hence the numbers of domestic violence cases where men are arrested when the police arrive, even though the man obviously is the one worse off. Same again with street violence where the male will be assumed to be responsible, and taken away.

The point is that with the lack of evidence it comes down to who to believe based on their statements. The article makes no mention of any actual evidence being provided to prove the aggression of the man, beyond the woman's claims. It's just being assumed by many here that he is guilty.

Now... I would like to believe that the court was presented with clear evidence to prove the claims of the woman. Otherwise, it's easy to assume that she was believed because of her gender.

Outlaw Pete

Sense at last. Conviction quashed.

Bailiff Sir William Bailhache said that the court was satisfied that the 'Magistrate went wrong in a material way' and set aside Queree's conviction.

The reasons behind this decision will be published at a later date.

Roger Hassenforder

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Sense at last. Conviction quashed.

The Sun (dont judge me) has a bit more:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5275223/junior-doctor-philip-queree-sex-offender-conviction-quashed-tinder-date/


Advocate David Steenson, who was representing Queree, argued there was insufficient evidence in the case for Magistrate Bridget Shaw to have come to the decision she did.

He said that the charge of indecent assault was never appropriate for the case and that his client should have been charged with common assault or grave and criminal assault instead.

The Advocate added: "Her complaints to the defendant did not amount to a complete prohibition of touching her breasts. She was demanding he was more gentle with her not that he wouldn't touch her breasts at all.

"Right-thinking members of society wouldn't think that touching your partner's breasts during consensual lovemaking would be indecent. It is nothing out of the ordinary, it is implicitly accepted."

He told the court that the main point the prosecution made at the time of the trial was that the assault had been indecent because the woman had forbid Queree from touching her breasts.

He however doubted that "that kind of script" was given during a sexual encounter he described as "vigorous sex making."

But Conrad Yates, for the prosecution, told the court the assault was indecent because Queree had been touching a part of the complainant's body that is "sexual."

He added the sex had only been consensual "to the extent that she told him not to grab her breasts."

Pac1Man

I can't decide. I'm on the fence. Perhaps. Maybe. Who's to say really.

It will still be tough for him on the job front unfortunately. The world we live in.