Lies and Damned Lies on Oath

The erstwhile popular entertainer Rolf Harris has recently concluded nearly three years at Her Majesty's Pleasure. The previous pleasure he afforded her Royal Highness was in 2005 when he produced a superb painting of Her Maj to mark her 80th birthday. In 2014 he was convicted of a number of sex attacks on young women and girls. The most sinister of the charges was one alleging an attack on an 8-year old child... more about that in a moment.

In May this year, he was re-tried on four charges upon which the original jury couldn't agree. I attended most of this trial as a spectator and, taking notes throughout (as one would expect jury members to do!), I was in no doubt by the conclusion of the case that the charges should be dismissed. As it turned out, this is what happened but, once again, the jury members couldn't agree on their verdicts. There will be no more re-trials.

Now the Court of Appeal has quashed one of Mr Harris’ 12 original convictions from 2014, although the judges have upheld the remaining 11. Importantly, this quashed conviction concerned the most serious and revolting allegation of all, namely that Mr Harris had sexually abused an 8-year old girl during an event at a venue in Portsmouth in 1969.

This conviction was ruled ‘unsafe’ on the grounds that new evidence provided by the complainant’s own stepfather suggested that the girl would never have been permitted to attend such an event by herself at that young age. Moreover, the sole ‘eye-witness’ to the alleged assault - one David James -has now been exposed as a serial liar, fantasist and convicted fraudster, who has repeatedly claimed to have had a military career despite incontrovertible evidence that he is a lorry driver who never wore the Queen’s uniform and never served abroad in Korea, as he had claimed falsely on oath.

What is deeply shocking – but sadly hardly surprising in modern Britain – is that both the police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) were aware of this lying fantasist’s dubious character, yet withheld this vital information from the defence and – equally importantly – from the jury at the first trial. This man was permitted to lie on oath and Rolf Harris was duly convicted and sentenced, despite his repeated protestations that he had never performed at the Portsmouth venue at the time claimed. He was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment on that charge alone.

The imposture of the key witness was only discovered by Mr Harris’ defence team when preparing his appeal against conviction. In response, the prosecution claimed that its failure to disclose this man's utter unreliability was 'a mistake'. It was, if I may say so, a very convenient ‘mistake’ and yet another example, in a very long line of incidents, in which crucial evidence has been withheld from the defence in sexual assault prosecutions.

Will any action now be taken against the fantasist who stood up in front of a judge and jury and told bare-faced lies on oath? I very much doubt it. It seems that blatant perjury is no longer treated as a serious criminal offence – or even prosecuted – as long as it assists the police and CPS in getting convictions, particularly in prosecutions for alleged sexual offences.

Even if the liars fail to impress the jury and the accused is acquitted, they're still not called to account even when their lies are obvious. I repeat for the umpteenth time, the two perjurers who dragged me into a court of law in 2014 and were subsequently seen to be what they are - lying, insidious fantasists - have still not been called to account, and it's over three years since the preposterous trial.

I am currently following another appalling case of an ex-teacher who was jailed in 2014 on the word of a proven liar who was, at the time, facing serious criminal charges himself. Needless to say, any charges against him were put aside.

According to media reports Mr Harris’ accuser has apparently already pocketed £22,000 in compensation payments. No doubt she will be permitted to keep the cash, despite this conviction having been quashed (a less generous observer might prefer to say comprehensively trashed).

The main, obvious point of concern following this latest judicial reversal is, if Mr. Harris was not guilty of abusing that woman when she was an 8-year old girl, what effect did hearing the dubious evidence adduced on this particular charge have on the original jury when they considered all the other allegations against him? Can you imagine sitting on a jury considering the fate of a man who is alleged to have sexually assaulted an 8-year old child? Once they had decided he was guilty of this offence, surely the minds of those jury members must have been influenced when considering all the other allegations. How can they not have? Yet the judges in the Court of Appeal seem to have concluded that all the other 11 convictions are safe.

May I put it to you, Your Lordships, that I defy anyone to hear evidence from a witness who vividly relates a sexual assault allegedly committed against him or her at the age of eight and not form a highly negative view of the person accused. After all, that is why the CPS opts to ‘bundle’ as many separate charges against a defendant as possible, in order to suggest the accused’s propensity to commit similar acts.

Surely, when one convincing complainant gives evidence of a vile crime being committed against him or her, it must contaminate the rest of the trial, since the jurors form a view of the defendant, particularly if that complainant was a pre-pubescent girl at the time of the alleged offence. Had the jury in the first trial been made aware that there were grave doubts about the truth of this crucial allegation – and the fact that the one key eye-witness to the alleged incident was a notorious liar and fantasist – it  would surely have led them to be much more cautious about the remaining allegations against Mr Harris.


We live in dangerous times: even totally unfounded allegations of a sexual nature can end a person’s career – and, sadly, even their life – long before they have even been charged, let alone convicted. Publicising such allegations prior to a conviction opens the way for a rag bag collection of liars, fantasists and compensation hunters to invent similar stories which can all too often be seized upon by police officers, who then fail grossly to undertake any rigorous investigation. And, as the quashing of one of Mr Harris’ convictions clearly shows, even when key witnesses are known to the police as liars and fantasists, this crucial information may be withheld from the defence, the judge and, crucially, the jury.

We already have a gross ‘inequality of arms’ in our courts. Most defendants, unlike Rolf Harris, simply do not have the financial resources to pay highly skilled investigators (often retired police detectives) to examine the evidence, check facts and track down potential witnesses – something that can prove absolutely vital in so-called historical sexual abuse cases, where the allegations can date back decades. The police have resources to do this work but often seem to rely entirely on the complainant’s statements, rather than impartially, thoroughly and even-handedly investigating the allegations.

As things stand, our justice system is being brought woefully into disrepute, yet police, prosecutors and perjuring witnesses seem to enjoy complete immunity from any negative consequences of appalling miscarriages of justice. How many innocent men and women are currently rotting in prison, their lives ruined, as a direct consequence of deeply flawed prosecutions?

And, to conclude, does any rational person on the street not now begin to wonder just how many more lies have been laid at the door of the beleaguered Rolf Harris?

Trial By Media

As many of my followers are probably aware, in 2012 I was publicly arrested as part of some police 'Operation' for an allegation of an inappropriate after-shower inspection in 1981, following a supposed P.E. lesson. The accuser was then 11 years old. The facts that a) I have never taught P.E. and b) I have never taught 11 year olds in a thirty year teaching career did not prevent the very public arrest and the subsequent, immediate, widespread publicity. I was driven to the cusp of suicide and, had I been cursed with a sensitive nature and had not endured a tough boarding school education, I would certainly have carried out this awful act.

It was the publicity which drove me to despair. You see everything you have built up ruined by the court of public opinion. The untutored mob of the evil internet (none had ever met me) repeatedly entreated me to kill myself at that time.

And still anonymity is refused to those facing a mere allegation.

On a TV debate programme I watched earlier today, the journalist Yasmin Alibhai Brown stated that, on the other side of the argument, Harvey Weinstein would not have been exposed had his name been kept out of the press. Yes he would have been - it would have happened straight after he had been found guilty in a court of law. This is the time to publish, thereby humiliate, people accused of abuse. Anyone who has had to experience his or her name being published in a story of alleged child abuse will testify to the horror of the experience: it's degrading, it's unalloyed cruelty - even if one is totally innocent. I had never met my accuser!

The police use this process of naming accused people to harvest (trawling, it's called) statements from other accusers, who are not hard to find if you offer a generous compensation payout at the end of the process. Indeed, money is paid out even if the accused is not charged or is found not guilty. What the police lack in quality 'evidence', they make up for in quantity, if they can.

We no longer live in an age when people are afraid to step forward to claim abuse. Even if Weinstein's name had been kept away from the media, local Hollywood gossip would have spread that the police were investigating him. But his name should NOT have been put officially into the public arena until he is found guilty of an offence in a court of law.

Otherwise, we maintain a system whereby accused people are used as an unfortunate by-product of the way we administer so-called justice. If this continues, then, I fear, there are going to be many more people, just like Welsh Assembly Cabinet Secretary Carl Sargeant, who are driven to take their own lives. I know exactly how Mr. Sergeant felt, as do the hundreds of people who have also faced this appalling practice.

Liar, Liar...

The new ITV drama serial 'Liar' recently reached its conclusion. It was billed as a 'did he or didn't he?' story of a hospital surgeon, Andrew, (played by Ioan Grifford), who is accused of drugging and raping Laura, (played by Joanne Froggatt), after an ostensibly romantic meal in a seaside restaurant. To add to the drama, Laura happens to be Andrew's son's English teacher, which makes it even more reckless of him to choose her on whom to carry out such a vicious crime.

Did it happen? Will she be believed?

From the outset I knew how this drama would unfold: to keep the tension, the writer thought he'd initially throw into the mix the possibility she could be making up her accusations. Sure enough, early on in the investigation, Andrew receives communication from a person whom Laura had accused of a similar offence many years earlier. That charge was dropped. But, inevitably, it wasn't long before the pendulum swung back Laura's way and it came as absolutely no surprise to me that she was revealed to be telling the truth after all. He was predictably declared to be a conniving, mendacious serial rapist.

Let's be clear about this - there's not a cat-in-hell's chance of a TV drama being commissioned here in the UK in the modern age, in which the accuser is revealed to be a lying fantasist. Because, as we are repeatedly reminded, it is such a rarity that people make a false allegation of having been sexually abused. We are pointed to the statistics which support this - I wrote in a previous blog about BBC correspondent Daniel Sandford recently claiming on the 6 o'clock News that there are 160 times more prosecutions for rape than for making false claims. He and the statisticians simply ignore the fact the CPS and police are not the slightest bit interested in pursuing malicious lies, even when those lies are obvious.

As for 'Liar', can you imagine the reaction of the militant lobbyists/sexual assault activists/lynch-mob Twitterati zealots/the self-appointed injustice campaigners if Andrew had been innocent all along and Laura a representation of the myriad opportunists, fantasists, greedy inadequates and downright liars who inhabit the UK?

The truth is malicious, unfounded allegations of sexual assault are an ever-increasing problem in our society and I think our TV programme commissioners have a duty to reflect this on our screens. However, I'm not holding my breath.