Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Changing the dates on indictment for child sexual abuse.

  • 04-09-2023 8:09pm
    #1
    political analyst
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,685 ✭✭✭


    https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/website/post/the-false-allegations-industry

    This blog was written by Jonathan King, who was found guilty in 2001 of the sexual abuse of young males. I know that, in response to his continuing claim of innocence, people may say, "He would, wouldn't he?!".

    However, the journalist Bob Woffinden became convinced that King is the victim of a miscarriage of justice - and here's one reason: the changing of the dates by the prosecution during the trial. Here's a quote from King's blog.


    "When we provided evidence in court that the dates of the allegations were impossible (always lowering the ages of the claimants), they applied to the Judge HHJ Paget to change the Indictment. Fair enough, but my team was not given a single second to investigate and possibly establish alibis for the new dates. One false accuser had to change the dates TWICE."


    Why would a court of law regard it as acceptable for the prosecution to 'move the goalposts' on the dates of alleged child sexual abuse? I can't imagine it being permitted in criminal cases in which there is no sexual element.



Comments

  • #2
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,994 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    This is part of the wider problem of investigating and prosecuting historic crimes, particular the crime of child sexual abuse. Memories of childhood trauma can be vivid, but also partial, and one of the things you tend not to remember is the exact date. Unless an incident happened, e.g, at your birthday party, dating it years after the event is extremely difficult. "I remember is was during the year when Miss So-and-So was my teacher, because she saw I was upset and asked me if I was OK — but I didn't tell her". "It was the year we went on holidays in Donegal." In may cases, this is as accurate as you are likely to get. Refining the date or range of dates an incident is believed to have occurred is a fairly common development in child abuse prosecutions.

    So, yeah, the court can face a challenge, trying to strike a balance that is in the interests of justice. And there are cases of child abuse allegations which are not prosecuted because the passage of time means that sufficient reliable evidence simply cannot be assembled.

    I can't comment on the details of the King, case, obviously, because I don't know them. If the date on which an offence is alleged to have occurred is changed, it seems reasonable that the defence should be given an adjournment so that they can investigate whether the defendant has an alibi for that date. We're told here that they weren't given an adjournment, but we're not told if they asked for one. If they didn't, why not? If they did, what reason was given for not granting one? Why didn't they appeal the refusal to grant? I don't know the answer to any of those questions.



Advertisement