10 thoughts on “‘Youngest victim’ of Rolf Harris may have to pay him back £22,000 in compensation after his conviction for groping her is overturned on appeal”
This result is bitter sweet for thos ewho think his convictions were unsafe.
This paticular conviction was always in the teeth of the evidence and common sense.
He supposedly assaulted her while signing autographs at a public event. This itself is deeply implausible surely some of the adults there would have reacted? There was no real evidence that he had ever been at the venue and lots of reason to think that the supposed event had never occured. However there was the ‘victims’ testimony and one others testimony.
What this demonstrates is the unreliability and danger of requesting testimony from decades ago where the request itself suggest what is being looked for. If enough people are subject to the request some will, possibly quite genuinely, believe the suggested event occured. The accused has almost no chance of disproving the event because it is so long ago but should not have to that is th eproblem men need to prove their innocence rather than teh other way around. It shows how easy it is to convict a man of sex crimes. The evidence was always shockingly poor but he was convicted anyway.
We need some limittation on how far back acusations can be pursued and we must not allow testimony that is the result of trawling for information across very large numbers of people. If 1 in 1 100,000 creates a false memory/testimony then seeking information from a million or even tens of millions gives a certainty of a lot of false evidence. Even mor ecritically each accusation has to be considered on its own merits and the practice of bundling together lots of poorly evidenced claims which were gathered through trawling has to be forbidden. If accusatiosn are unsolicted and unrelatd they can be use dto support eahc other but those related through common publicty and request shoudl never be used in this way.
In ROlf Harris’ case all of the accusations apart from the ones rlating to his daughters friend are very similar and are for similar reasons quite implausible but unless new evidence can be found he is probably stuck with those convictions.
As in the Ted Heath case, the argument, from the police in that case, was that the complainants did not know each other, yet their stories were very similar. In this day and age it is easy to connive with somebody you do not know via the internet. In this case, “She MAY have to pay the money back”? Surely, she MUST pay the money back. In any case, offering money for anything means people WILL come forward.
I think such cases are hugely important because of the reporting of the case. As you say I think the public tends to believe that the system functions as it appears in the many crime dramas. It doesn’t hurt to expose how tenuous some evidence can be. Of course such dramas don’t cover Magistrates Courts at all so their operation is a mystery and they can be even less rigorous. Given that there are so many less famous older men in gaol (so many that its affected the average age of the prison population) for crimes supposedly committed 40 or more years ago it seems pretty clear many will be so unjustly and not have the resources or support to fight back.
If she does then it may stop historic allegations in their tracks since without doubt the majority of them are motivated by money. Complaints against Savile, who admittedly is in a different league of awfulness did not emerge till the value of his estate was published.
Instead of saying that those who make such allegations “will be believed “ they should instead be asked, “where’s the corroboration?”
‘Complaints against Savile, who admittedly is in a different league of awfulness … ‘
Who is allegedly in a different league of awfulness. Saville was never convicted of anything and is therefore a man with an unblemished character. Whether or not he did some of the things he is alleged to have done, many of the four hundred and more accusations against him cannot but be bogus.
It happens more and more these days, that accused men must prove themselves innocent (which can be, as often as not, impossible). The burden of proof has been reversed, thanks to the lobbying of ideological feminists. It happened here with Rolf Harris, it happened with Mark Fisher and Mark Pearson (both completely innocent) and Ched Evans (whose behaviour was idiotic but not illegal), and a number of other well-known personalities. Some cases never even make it to court but men may still need to prove their innocence to prevent damage to reputation and careers; Cliff Richard and Paul Gambaccini come to mind.
And if it is not the accusers themselves who name particular men with a view to making some easy and risk-free ‘compensation’, it is authorities such as the police and the CPS who pursue a case to court beyond all reason. As for the Family Courts, again evidence is not required; merely an accusation, for injustice to be done. But who cares, beyond a few politicians and activists. To the vast majority, men don’t matter.
There must be a specific crime of making a false accusation of rape or sexual misconduct, with a compulsory prison term for those convicted . She must be stripped of all her possessions and Rolf Harris not just repaid the money he was unjustly deprived of but in addition a multiple of that sum in compensation. Her name must also be entered for life on a register of false accusers.
As someone who has worked with Rolf, I am over the moon at this result. It’s a shame though, that he is still in a position where he has lost everything he ever worked for, through convictions based on what I see as no evidence whatsoever.
Justice for Men & Boys 
This result is bitter sweet for thos ewho think his convictions were unsafe.
This paticular conviction was always in the teeth of the evidence and common sense.
He supposedly assaulted her while signing autographs at a public event. This itself is deeply implausible surely some of the adults there would have reacted? There was no real evidence that he had ever been at the venue and lots of reason to think that the supposed event had never occured. However there was the ‘victims’ testimony and one others testimony.
What this demonstrates is the unreliability and danger of requesting testimony from decades ago where the request itself suggest what is being looked for. If enough people are subject to the request some will, possibly quite genuinely, believe the suggested event occured. The accused has almost no chance of disproving the event because it is so long ago but should not have to that is th eproblem men need to prove their innocence rather than teh other way around. It shows how easy it is to convict a man of sex crimes. The evidence was always shockingly poor but he was convicted anyway.
We need some limittation on how far back acusations can be pursued and we must not allow testimony that is the result of trawling for information across very large numbers of people. If 1 in 1 100,000 creates a false memory/testimony then seeking information from a million or even tens of millions gives a certainty of a lot of false evidence. Even mor ecritically each accusation has to be considered on its own merits and the practice of bundling together lots of poorly evidenced claims which were gathered through trawling has to be forbidden. If accusatiosn are unsolicted and unrelatd they can be use dto support eahc other but those related through common publicty and request shoudl never be used in this way.
In ROlf Harris’ case all of the accusations apart from the ones rlating to his daughters friend are very similar and are for similar reasons quite implausible but unless new evidence can be found he is probably stuck with those convictions.
LikeLike
As in the Ted Heath case, the argument, from the police in that case, was that the complainants did not know each other, yet their stories were very similar. In this day and age it is easy to connive with somebody you do not know via the internet. In this case, “She MAY have to pay the money back”? Surely, she MUST pay the money back. In any case, offering money for anything means people WILL come forward.
LikeLike
I think such cases are hugely important because of the reporting of the case. As you say I think the public tends to believe that the system functions as it appears in the many crime dramas. It doesn’t hurt to expose how tenuous some evidence can be. Of course such dramas don’t cover Magistrates Courts at all so their operation is a mystery and they can be even less rigorous. Given that there are so many less famous older men in gaol (so many that its affected the average age of the prison population) for crimes supposedly committed 40 or more years ago it seems pretty clear many will be so unjustly and not have the resources or support to fight back.
LikeLike
Wonder if he’ll sue for wrongful arrest/conviction if he gets out. I imagine the police were hopping he’d die in jail before this day came.
LikeLike
If she does then it may stop historic allegations in their tracks since without doubt the majority of them are motivated by money. Complaints against Savile, who admittedly is in a different league of awfulness did not emerge till the value of his estate was published.
Instead of saying that those who make such allegations “will be believed “ they should instead be asked, “where’s the corroboration?”
LikeLike
‘Complaints against Savile, who admittedly is in a different league of awfulness … ‘
Who is allegedly in a different league of awfulness. Saville was never convicted of anything and is therefore a man with an unblemished character. Whether or not he did some of the things he is alleged to have done, many of the four hundred and more accusations against him cannot but be bogus.
LikeLike
It happens more and more these days, that accused men must prove themselves innocent (which can be, as often as not, impossible). The burden of proof has been reversed, thanks to the lobbying of ideological feminists. It happened here with Rolf Harris, it happened with Mark Fisher and Mark Pearson (both completely innocent) and Ched Evans (whose behaviour was idiotic but not illegal), and a number of other well-known personalities. Some cases never even make it to court but men may still need to prove their innocence to prevent damage to reputation and careers; Cliff Richard and Paul Gambaccini come to mind.
And if it is not the accusers themselves who name particular men with a view to making some easy and risk-free ‘compensation’, it is authorities such as the police and the CPS who pursue a case to court beyond all reason. As for the Family Courts, again evidence is not required; merely an accusation, for injustice to be done. But who cares, beyond a few politicians and activists. To the vast majority, men don’t matter.
LikeLike
There must be a specific crime of making a false accusation of rape or sexual misconduct, with a compulsory prison term for those convicted . She must be stripped of all her possessions and Rolf Harris not just repaid the money he was unjustly deprived of but in addition a multiple of that sum in compensation. Her name must also be entered for life on a register of false accusers.
LikeLike
“Register of false accusers” Now there is an idea that says equality to me.
LikeLike
As someone who has worked with Rolf, I am over the moon at this result. It’s a shame though, that he is still in a position where he has lost everything he ever worked for, through convictions based on what I see as no evidence whatsoever.
LikeLike