Professional Male accused by Teenage Girl

Introduction
 

The following is an actual real life case study of a British person who was convicted by Jury of alleged sex offences in a United Kingdom Crown Court.
Our studies of this case reveal shocking truths unknown to the general public.
Prior to reading this report we advise you to think impartially, you could do this by considering both the Complainant and the Defendant in context as a member of your family or a close friends.
The burden of proof in Criminal Law lies with the Prosecution, that in order to gain a conviction the Prosecution must prove ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that the crime(s) in question were committed.
This means the Jury has to be sure the offence(s) have taken place, following the submissions of the Prosecution if there remains any doubt that the crime(s) have been committed the accused must be acquitted.
In law it is not for the accused Defendant to prove his innocence, but we have witnessed that in Sex Offence cases the UK Justice System is permitting the opposite and requiring a accused Defendant to prove his innocence to a Jury of people who have no concept of the particular laws.
But as a accused person, if something DID NOT occur then how do you prove a negative?

The analogy the Cosmic Teapot illustrates that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the Burden of Proof to others, i.e. the accused person. 
If a person claimed that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for that person to expect others to believe them on the grounds that they cannot prove them wrong.
Established by philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970).

Background
 

The Complainant was a 15 year old female, who was still at school.
The Defendant was a male in his 30's, who had a professional career.
The charges against the Defendant were as follows:
That the Complainant performed oral sex upon the Defendant on up to 30 separate occasions whilst the Complainant was 14 and 15 years old.
That the Complainant had sexual intercourse in the Defendants sports car on one occasion at 15 years old.

The outline of the charges against the Defendant are as follows:
Oral sex was performed over approximately a year and a half during daytime, always at the Defendants public place of work.
After each and every occasion of oral sex the Complainant would tell her female friend, whom at the time was 18 years old, who for identity purposes we shall call 'Witness A'.
Sexual intercourse was in the rear of the Defendants sports car, in a public lay-by with a house next to it.
The intercourse was unprotected and the Complainant stated she bled heavily on the seats of the Defendants sports car immediately afterwards due to being a virgin.

The Claimant also stated:
The Defendant had taken her for a 'joy ride' in his sports car in a restricted area in work.
And that this was in daytime hours, whilst people were at the Defendants place of work.
She took pictures of herself in underwear at the request of the Defendant whilst she was in a two man tent during an event she was attending.
The Claimant informed the Police she had lost the memory card.
That she and the Defendant had got intimate and sexual whilst in a public area on a night out in the town, to which this was witnessed by her friend, again 'Witness A'.
'Witness A' informed the Police that this was correct.
The Defendant and herself were on their own at his place of work late at night on several occasions.
To which when questioned by Police on if anyone could verify this, the Claimant named a person whom she stated had spoken to her and saw the Defendant and her together on one of the occasions.
For identity purposes we shall call this person 'Witness B'.

That she knew things about the Defendant.
These facts known are not serious, and in the scheme of things we shall round up as 'Facts Known'. 
The Claimant states the Defendant told her these facts.

Arrest
 

The Defendant was arrested on the charge of Rape, which was later changed to Sexual Offences for some reason.
Upon being arrested the Defendant immediately denied the allegations made against him, and totally refuted them, and always continued to do so.
The Defendant complied with the Police fully with the inspection of his vehicle, his home, and the removal of all electronic devices and image storage devices.
The Defendant stated to Police that he had not seen the Complainant for around 8 months since she had made a pass at him, to which he rejected and followed up by stating to her that he would not be able to deal with her for the company he worked for.
The Defendant stated he thought she had not returned due to being embarrassed and the fact it was summer, so was probably doing other activities.
The Defendant stated he had given the Complainant a lift to the area she said was near her home in his car on two occasions over the space of approximately 18 months, but only due to it being bad weather and raining.
The Defendant states he did this as he felt sorry for the Claimant walking the few miles home in such circumstances, as the Complainants family had constantly neglected her and left her to her own devices.
A couple of other members of staff at his place of work had given the Complainant a lift home on many more occasions than he had, due to the same reasons.
The Defendant stated that he had NEVER been on a night out in town or anywhere else with the Complainant.
The Defendant stated all the allegations were lies.
That the information she is claiming as facts is readily available on social media and local knowledge etc as it is a small community town, and that he had not told her these things she is stating she knows.
The Defendant stated he was shocked and that he had no idea why the Claimant was doing this to him.

Outcome of Allegations
 

'Witness A' informed Police that the Complainant had told her of instances of oral sex with the Defendant.
Police Forensic testing of the areas of allegation at the Defendants place of work resulted totally NEGATIVE for evidence.
Police confiscated the Defendants sports car and Forensically tested it, which resulted totally NEGATIVE for Blood, Semen, and DNA.
So the Police removed the interior of the Defendants sports car and sent it to a Forensic laboratory for a Intensive Forensic examination, which resulted as totally NEGATIVE for Blood, Semen and DNA.

Crown Court
 

Examination of the Complainant:
Complainant totally changed the major part her evidence regarding sexual intercourse when questioned by the Defence Barrister.
Complainant reluctantly admitted that she had done this as the Police Investigating Officer had given her confidential inside information.
The Defendant was proven to have never received images from the Complainant on any of his devices, wich were checked thoroughly by the Police. 
Complainant was caught out lying about the memory card images that she had claimed were at the request of the Defendant.
It was proved by high tech software that the images were not at all as the Complainant had stated.
The images were confirmed taken in a bedroom, and taken at a different date than stated by the Complainant.
Complainant was proved to have major inconsistencies in respect to the other allegations and information she had given whilst under oath in Court.
She also had inconsistencies in her original statement to the Police.
As for a 'joy ride' in the Defendants car in a restricted area, that area is access control logged and covered by CCTV, to which there was NO evidence of such an event.

Examination of the 'Witness A'
 

'Witness A' informed the Court that she had been told of maybe up to 5 occasions of oral sex by the Complainant.
This is a huge discrepancy between the original 15 to 30 stated.
'Witness A' first stated she couldn't remember if she had witnessed the intimate and sexual acts between the Defendant and Claimant on the night out in town.
The Judge got directly involved and said surely you would remember something like that occurring, to which
'Witness A' reluctantly confirmed that she had not witnessed the event described.
He then asked if she had ever witnessed that event, or anything like it between the Defendant and the Complainant, to which she stated NO.

Examination of the 'Witness B'
 

'Witness B' informed the Court that he had NOT witnessed the Defendant and the Claimant together in the situation as the Claimant had informed Police.
He said he had not seen any inappropriate meetings between them.

Examination of the investigating Police Officer
 

Police Officer stated that the CCTV camera viewing a area of the Defendants workplace where allegations of oral sex took place is a fake camera, as he had been told this by the Defendants workplace CCTV owner.
This was a LIE by the Police Officer to give plausibility that sexual activity could of occurred or been possible in an area unrecorded by CCTV.
The CCTV owner confirmed in Crown Court that he informed that Police Officer the camera in question is real and records 24 hours per day.
Police Officer stated that he enquired about the CCTV system hard drive recordings exceeding 14 months after the Defendant was arrested.
This was a LIE by the Police Officer to give the impression that he was 'too late' to retrieve the CCTV evidence recordings from the security system.
The CCTV owner confirmed in Crown Court that he was questioned about this by the Police Officer the same day the Defendant was arrested, to which he informed that Investigating Police Officer about the hard drive recording all cameras 24 hours per day.

Examination of the Defendant
 

The Prosecution Barrister questioned the Defendant, to which the Defendant answered that he had NEVER had any kind of sexual relationship with the Claimant.
The Defendants answers to everything were the same as he had stated 18 months previously upon being arrested.
There was nothing inappropriate proved by the Prosecution's examination of the Defendant.

Examination of multiple Defence Witnesses
 

A overview of this is that all of these Witnesses proved lies and major inconsistencies by the Complainant.
The facts known about the Defendant by the Complainant were due to the Complainant gleaning information from other sources, and NOT by the Defendant informing her as she stated.
It was proven that the Defendant had NOT been on a night out with the Claimant as she had claimed.

Summing Up and Jury's Verdict
 

The trial was summed up by the Judge as there being massive inconsistencies in the uncorroborated Claimants allegations against the Defendant.
And that it would be "unsafe to convict" the Defendant based on the events of the trial.
The Jury went out to deliberate for approximately 2 and a half hours.
They returned unanimous on a Friday afternoon with a Guilty verdict for all charges against the Defendant.
Once the shock of the verdict had died down the Judge stated that the Defendant would face a prison sentence.
Immediately 2 women in the Jury burst out crying, and one fled the Court.
The remaining Jury members were staring downwards towards the floor.

Some Shocking Facts
 

In UK Law the definition of Corroboration is the provision of actual Material Evidence, and/or Proven Facts, and/or Witness Corroboration.
Did you know that a Judge, only in a Sex Offence case, is relieved of his duty to inform the Jury they must base their verdict on Evidence, Facts and Witness Corroboration backing the allegation(s).
So the Judge does not inform the Jury they must have proof beyond reasonable doubt, as in allegation(s) of a sex offence you can be convicted without any proof, just hearsay of a Complainant. 

[Section 32]
Only in a Sex Offence case the Female Complainant requires NO Evidence, NO Facts and NO Witness Corroboration.
The law in this respect is allowing conviction without any actual proof or evidence.

[Section 33]
The only thing required under the 2003 Sexual Offences Act is the uncorroborated word of a FEMALE Complainant.
Under Section 33 (1)(a) to (e) it is the sexist definition of Females only in relation to the law.
This section is incorporated into the current UK 2003 Sexual Offences Act by the Sexual Offences Act of 1956.

Please look at Section 32 - Abolition of Corroboration Rules
Also Section 33 - Abolition of Corroboration Requirements

This is the law governing the Sexual Offences Act in the UK.
To find these laws click the following links, Section 32 and Section 33.
Or click legislation.gov.uk and search under Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
Immorrally ONLY in a UK Sex Offence trial are the Prosecution allowed to disclose to the Jury the Defendants previous convictions PRIOR to the trial commencing.
The disclosure even includes any non related incidents, such as minor warnings or motoring offences.
This is done by the Prosecution to discredit the Defendant in the eyes of the Jury before they hear the allegation(s).
Why only in a UK Sex Offence case, are the Defendants allowed to be named and shamed publicly PRIOR to any trial or conviction, but the accuser (Complainant) remains anonymous.
This ruins the life of any person accused, which cannot be undone if for example the Complainant owns up to falsifying the allegation(s) for their own personal reason, e.g. revenge, attention seeking, or financial gain.

What happened to Innocent until proven Guilty?
This does NOT apply in a Sex Offences case.
So the accused faces the equivalent of a firing squad (Jury) that have been extremely influenced by other inflated Sex Offence cases in the media.
The Compensation Culture is rife which makes for many cases of 'chancers' after money thus creating a high volume of FALSE accusations.
Also if the complainant is proved lying at the time or later along after a conviction then majority of the time NO action is taken against them, and they DO NOT have to give the compensation back.
This is apparently to encourage other victims of Sex Offences to come forward.
The trouble being the flood gates have been opened for immoral people wanting to try their luck for financial gain.

Conclusion
 

The Defendant was sent to prison for 5 years, and continued to maintain his innocence throughout, even when offered to have his sentence made considerably less bby up to half if he was to state he was guilty of the accusations against him.
After release from prison the Defendant was immediately in contact with Solicitors and handed over case files he has written after scrutinising the Prosecution files from the investigation and trial.
With regards to the Defendant we have studied in this Case Study, there is a lot more evidence we are not able to disclose at present which supports the Defendants plea of Not Guilty in his original trial.
There is also new evidence which fully supports the Defendants application for a Appeal Hearing against Conviction.
This may be revealed to the public via updates to this Case Study once an Appeal has been listed or heard in the Royal Courts of Justice, or the European Court Of Human Rights.

The Defendant continues to fight to clear his reputable name after what quite obviously appears to be a Gross Miscarriage of Justice from totally uncorroborated allegations.

This is a extrremely difficult task as the system stripped him of all his finances, and tries to keep him in this position, to make exposing a Gross Miscarriage Of Justice out of his reach.

The Defendant is on the sex offenders list for life, and is constantly harrassed month after month

Does the Defendent deserve to be persecuted for life for uncorroborated hearsay of an unfounded accusation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

FALSE allegations of abuse IS ABUSE.

There are a massive amount of FALSE allegations against men, with the innocent men going to prison and having their life ruined and their family's.

The UK public are NOT made aware of the NO Evidence, NO Facts or NO Witness Corroboration law for UK Sex Offences.

It's time to think for ourselves - are all convicted Sex Offenders Guilty?

Other European Countries DO NOT recognise the UK Sex Offences Act, as they do not have laws in their country that convict a person with NO Evidence to support the Complainants hearsay allegation.

The European Court of Human Rights has condemned the UK for its principles under its Sexual Offences Act.

And also the labelling of a person on a Sex Offender list for life as immoral and inhumane, as there is no end to the punishment and persecution.

There is a huge difference between a person accused of a Sex Offence that has maintained that they are innocent, and a person accused of a Sex Offence who either admits their offence, or there is evidence they are guilty.

Why are murderers, arsonists, violent persons and thieves not on any list?

Surely the public also have a right to know if they are living next door to, or in the same street as any of these.

Why is it only accused Sex Offence Defendants that are named and shamed prior to trial or conviction?

Why is the bar set so extremely high, only for cases of Sex Offences, to gain grounds to achieve Leave to Appeal?

Could it be that the Justice System wishes to encourage public hostility towards accused Sex Offenders, as it realises the Sex Offences Act in the UK is flawed and that they wish to prevent the truth being revealed.

......You Decide.