I was asked, as an experienced Child Abuse Lawyer, to give an interview to LBC Radio this morning about the recent press conference given by Harvey Proctor, who has now been interviewed twice by the Metropolitan Police about serious allegations being investigated by Operation Midland concerning his connection with the Dolphin Square child abuse paedophile ring, and various serious allegations. My view is that we should not be judging guilt or innocence at this stage, nor should Mr Proctor be attempting to manipulate the press and public into believing that he is innocent in advance of any criminal charges. The venue for the trial of guilt or innocence is the criminal court, not the media. If it is wrong for the allegations to be made public, so is it wrong for him to hold a press conference in an attempt to clear his name. I also do not think that this is anything approaching a witch hunt.
The questions posed by LBC Radio were:-
- Is it correct for the identity of a suspect to be made public before charging him/her with a criminal offence?In cases where the individual has based his/her career upon promotion through the media, and is a public figure, then different rules should apply in that they have based their popularity upon the help they get from the media and the public. “Live by the sword, die by the sword”In other cases against celebrities, the media exposure has brought other complainants forward, who otherwise would not have been contactable by the police in that the abuse had taken place many years ago whilst the celebrity was making public appearances. This has had the effect of reinforcing the case against the accused, and assisted the prosecution.In Group Actions I have been involved in, after charges have been brought, admittedly, in care home cases the accused has appealed for witnesses to come forward to support his good character, which has back fired on him/her, in that it has brought forward other complainants of abuse against him/her.The debate on anonymity goes on. I can see there is an argument that no details of an offender should be released until after charge, when the reporting restrictions clearly apply, in order to prevent justice being affected. No such prohibitions apply pre-charge, which place the debate into clearer focus. I think that the complainant should be protected, because they are often vulnerable children or disabled adults, and far less powerful than the accused.
- Is this a witch hunt against homosexuals? The Salem Witch Hunts of many years ago involved Witches being hunted down and put to death by the authorities for simply being witches without any evidence of wrong doing. The analogy being drawn is clearly wrong in that here we have actual allegations by individuals being investigated by the police against certain accused individuals. If there was no evidence to investigate then the Witch Hunt analogy would hold more water. In a civilised society, with all the rules of evidence there are, then a Witch Hunt by the Police could clearly not happen.
- Should the Policeman in charge of the investigation resign if he has got it all wrong? Clearly not. The policeman in charge has an obligation to the public to investigate all allegations made to him/her by the individual concerned. It is his/her job to seek out all the available evidence, then refer it to the Crown Prosecution service, who will decide whether it meets the threshold required by them to charge or otherwise. Again, because of the independence and power of the CPS, it would not be possible for the police to charge someone on the basis of bias even if he wanted to do so.
According to the Guardian, the allegations made by “Nick” are:-
- In 1980, Proctor is accused of stripping and tying a boy to a table in a house in central London, stabbing the child through the arm and the body over 40 minutes, before raping and killing the boy through strangulation. Nick claims to be a witness to the murder.
- In a London home between 1981 and 1982, Proctor is accused of anally raping Nick at a party before being joined by two other men who then punched and kicked an alleged victim who is believed to have died.
- In Kingston upon Thames, between May and June 1979, Nick claims he witnessed a boy being run down and killed by a car, and believes Proctor was part of the group responsible for the killing. Proctor is accused of raping Nick with several other males in Dolphin Square between 1979 and 1984.
- He is alleged to have opened the door to the exclusive Carlton Club when Nick was taken there by a rapist between 1978 and 1981.
- Proctor is accused of raping Nick at a swimming pool party in central London between 1978 and 1981.
- Between 1981 and 1982, Proctor is accused of forcing Nick to perform oral sex in a large townhouse in central London. On another occasion, Proctor is also accused in the same venue of producing a penknife and threatened to cut Nick’s genitals.
- Between 1979 and 1984, Proctor is accused of forcing Nick to perform oral sex before beating him with punches at a central London address.
- Over the same period, at locations including the Carlton Club, a flat in Dolphin Square and a central London home, Proctor was alleged to have been present at Christmas parties with Nick. At one of these parties, he is alleged to have forced Nick to perform oral sex.
These allegations are said by Mr. Proctor in the press conference to be so fanciful and extreme that they could not be true. He does maintain that he is innocent, and as such should not be pilloried by media exposure. On the other hand these allegations are so serious that they must be rigorously investigated by the police in great depth. It is undoubtedly correct that if an allegation has been made, then the person against whom it is made must be entitled to counter them at a police interview or criminal trial in a balanced way. Mr Proctor denies the allegations, and as such he should be given the right to defend himself at a trial before a Judge and jury, if indeed he is ever charged. The trial should not take place in the glare of the media before charges have even been brought.
At the press conference yesterday, there was no representative from the police, or the complainant. It was simply an opportunity for Mr Proctor to make allegations against the police, and to suggest that the complainant was making false allegations. It was therefore a one sided debate clearly designed to influence the media in his favour. Arguably such publicity could affect any criminal trial, should there ever be one. To hold a press conference about the wrongfulness of media exposure concerning allegations of abuse, is somewhat paradoxical.
This argument has been made by public figures against whom allegations have been made many times before. The same is true, of course, of non-famous people, but their stories are of limited media interest due to their low media profile. Hopefully, one day, some legislation will be passed to clarify the position one way or another. Meanwhile, it provides opportunities for debate to take place by those for and against.
Good article but one which does not take into account the fact that, whilst yesterday may have been a one sided debate, it comes after nearly a year of drip fed stories from “Nick” via that “odd news agency” Exaro.
Information with regards to “Nick’s” allegations has been far more detailed in Exaro’s “Nick” related articles than in Mr Proctor’s statement. Further details have also been provided via “Nick’s” blog and his tweets, particularly his detailed (and graphically illustrated) poems. In this instance the alleged victim went to the press (who subsequently published them) with the murder allegations well before telling the police about them and making a formal statement, and took a journalist with him when he did so too.
How can it be said that Mr Proctor’s statement yesterday may prejudice proceedings and yet not address everything so far revealed by “Nick” and Exaro over the course of the last year which has been far more detailed?
I know this is a long time ago, and I should have replied sooner, but having considered this, my answer would be that any sort of publicity about matters which should be debated in the Crown Court of Justice in the form of a trial of guilt and innocence rather than in the Court of the Media is the right way to go. If at QualitySolicitor Abney Garsden, we receive allegations of abuse, as we constantly do, we signpost them straight to the police before we process any case work against the person responsible. If we don’t do so we risk interfering and prejudicing any criminal trial. This is our policy and I think it is professional, and correct. I don’t think it was right for any of the allegations for and against to have leaked out into the press at all.
In other words, 2 wrongs don’t make a right. Even to a lawyer, 2 negatives don’t make a positive.
He has every right to talk to the media, as his name shouldn’t have been made public in the first place. Instead of putting blame on Proctor for any publicity affecting a crimininal trial – you should be putting it on the police and media.
Hi Peter
I wonder if you could answer this obvious question?
If Proctor was part of a secret VIP child abusing/killing/satanist ring, which allegedly included the former Prime Minister Edward Heath and lots of others who would have been under close protection by police/military police…how is it he was arrested for gross indecency, had to resign his seat in 1986, went on trial in ’87 and was found guilty and fined?
Surely his chums would have protected him from all that, for fear he would ‘blow the gaff’ then or anytime since? No secret society has their members ejected.
Oh, and why didn’t you mention you are a firm believer in satanic ritual abuse and secret societies?
‘My own belief is that there are several hidden societies in England and Wales which practise ritualistic abuse to the present day, which includes the sacrifice of children described graphically in Dennis Wheatley novels. The Wicker Man film is obviously fictional, but not far away from the truth, I believe. A similar attitude would have been adopted to child abuse 70 years ago, I would imagine.’
http://abuselaw.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/is-witchraft-and-ritualistic-abuse.html
But if you truly believe all of that above, then it would be the greatest story ever in the history of news. And you wouldn’t be able to live with that knowledge and not pursue it. So if you have evidence of such ‘several hidden societies in England and Wales which practise ritualistic abuse to the present day’ then I have the budget and know the people who could gather irrefutable evidence with no risk to yourself. A modern camera can shoot crystal clear pictures/video from two miles away and a mic can do the same, sometimes from even further. Just contact my email address. I can get to Cheadle Hulme any day of the week!
I think that the leakage of news stories to the media is inevitable in a media hungry digital age. In an ideal world, or perhaps a more restrictive 1984 Orwellian environment, such information would not leak out, but none of us want the sort of repression that exists in many other countries, who are far less civilized than ourselves.
We at the firm act for the victims of abuse, whose interests, I always represent. The effect of this sort of publicity is corrosive to them, and insulting of their credibility, when, no doubt, it has taken great courage to speak out and come forwards.
The problem was that the Harvey Proctor press conference was one sided, and had no opponents or victims to challenge anything that he had to say, other than the media. Thus my original point that the debate should take place inside a Court, not in the glare of publicity, remains. He is, of course, entitled to his opinion, expressed publicly if he so wishes.
Peter
The issue is one of balance.
You say this, and I agree.
Unhappily you do not follow this through.
Harvey Proctor, in your view, was a problem because he presented a one sided story without Nick (amongst others) being able to challenge or present a counter view / evidence.
But you do not in any comparable strength make the balanced argument that Exaro and Nick had been doing precisely that for many many months.
I think the short and simple answer to this is that I would say the same about any sort of trial by media, filtered, however, by the thought that it would acceptable to plead to the media if conventional methods have been attempted and failed to bring about the desired result.