Our not so infallible executive branch of the government
Imagine being a young adult, waiting for a bus at a bus stop, minding your own business, and then you get approached by a stranger, trying to chat you up, asking for your number. You’re not interested. You politely decline, but he does not stop. So instead of waiting for your bus, you start walking. A few minutes later, you find a car pull up next to you, with the same stranger driving the car, as he continues to harass you. As you start speed walking, his advances start to get more lewd, “Why won’t you suck my cock, darling?”. Imagine being so scared, you stop another car to ask for help. He disappears for a few minutes but reappears. You manage to get away and reach your friend’s house safely. You call the police. The case goes to trial. You stop going to the area while the trial goes on because you feel unsafe. Any car with the same colour makes you think it might be him again. After all this, the man walks away a free man, left to exit the same way as you. He is found not guilty, not because the Judge believed his version of the story over yours, but because the police simply did not bring enough evidence that the man in court that day was, in fact, the stranger from that day. He walks away a free man, leaving your freedom and space, and that of so many other women, a little bit smaller.
The Crown Prosecution Services had charged the man with using threatening/abusive/insulting words/behaviour to cause harassment/alarm/distress. The defence that the defendant was relying on was that it simply was not him driving the said car that day. He knows he can rely on this because he has been served the evidence from the Crown Prosecution and he knows the police did not carry out an ID parade after the incident to be able to prove the man’s identity in court. There is, however, CCTV footage of the car following the woman.
Here’s the legal part to understand exactly what happened in this case. This offence is laid out under section 5 of the Public Order Act of 1986. The offence includes any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening. The defence provided under this section of the Act is if there was no reason to believe harm or alarm or distress may be caused by the action or that the person would see or hear the action to be caused harm or alarm or distress. As is standard in criminal cases, it is for the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was the defendant being charged with the offence who used threatening/abusive/insulting words/behaviour to cause harassment/alarm/distress. The defendant in this case is simply arguing that it was not him. When the defendant’s identity is uncertain, the police carry out what is known as an identification parade. This is where the complainant or the victim points out the offender out of 8 people with similar features. This is carried out to ascertain the identity of the perpetrator.
The penalty for an offence like this a fine of up to £1000.
Unfortunately, in this case, the police did not carry out an ID parade. They had CCTV footage to show the entire incident, from the bus stop to when she manages to get away from him. The footage was only able to identify the car but was not clear enough to identify the perpetrator. Worth noting that the description of the man provided was that he had a beard and short hair, on the day of the trial, the defendant appeared smooth shaven all over. The Crown had not done enough to be able to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the man at trial was the same man who harassed her on the day. The Judge had no other choice but to find him not guilty. It made me think of cases where Judges or Magistrates are criticized for their judgment when a lot of it comes down to the evidence that lawyers produce in proving or casting doubt on elements of the law. Being bound by the evidence produced in court only, free from any preconceived biases, is the struggle towards reaching a fairer system. But this system too is fallible, just as are Crown’s prosecutors and the police.
As he was pronounced not guilty, I kept thinking that I hope she does not seem him on her way out. Parts of her evidence kept ringing in my ear, “I memorized the car plate number so I could tell the police”, she kept repeating with the beguiled conviction that that would help them get him, that they could protect her from him, and other woman from having to go through the same thing as her. “I no longer go near that area because I fear for my safety, any car I see with the same colour shade gives me anxiety and I go into a panic for my safety”. And so, the world continues to become smaller and smaller for women.
Leave a comment