Cleared of 'sexual assault' in 90 mins.

Osem · 09-02-2016, 15:16

Quote:

In December 2014, Mark Pearson was walking through Waterloo Underground station when he passed, and may have brushed against, a woman who turned out to be a well-known actress.

She accused him of a serious sexual assault and of hitting her on the shoulder, with the case going to trial.

There were no witnesses and was no forensic evidence. It took the jury 90 minutes to acquit him.

Mark Pearson told 5 live daily's Adrian Chiles the whole case was "preposterous".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35531436

Ludicrous!

I guess the complainant was confused...

SnoopZ · 09-02-2016, 15:37

Why hasn't the person who accused him been named?

Osem · 09-02-2016, 15:43

Well we wouldn't want to create an atmosphere in which women might be put off just accusing men of stuff would we...

**Damien** · 09-02-2016, 15:54

Also because somebody being found innocent doesn't mean the accuser was lying. This isn't a case where the defendant should have named in my view and we should look at.

---------- Post added at 15:54 ---------- Previous post was at 15:52 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem

Well we wouldn't want to create an atmosphere in which women might be put off just accusing men of stuff would we...

We don't want to create an atmosphere where genuine victims are told that if they report a rape and the prosecution fails then they'll be named in the media either.

Osem · 09-02-2016, 16:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

Also because somebody being found innocent doesn't mean the accuser was lying. This isn't a case where the defendant should have named in my view and we should look at.

---------- Post added at 15:54 ---------- Previous post was at 15:52 ----------

We don't want to create an atmosphere where genuine victims are told that if they report a rape and the prosecution fails then they'll be named in the media either.

Of course not but this case was evidently frivolous so are we ok about innocent men's lives (and their families) being the only things sacrificed in the pursuit of justice? What about their justice? I don't know how you get to work etc. but maybe you should avoid standing or walking anywhere near a woman just in case she gets the idea that you've assaulted her...

I wonder, had the circumstances been reversed, if his name would have been withheld (in the unlikely event that he'd not been laughed at by the police and CPS that is).

**Damien** · 09-02-2016, 16:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem

Of course not but this case was clearly frivolous so are we ok about innocent men's lives (and their families) being the only things sacrificed in the pursuit of justice? What about their justice?

No I don't think he should have been named and the CPS has questions to answer about why they brought the case in the first place. I don't think either of those issues are addressed by publicly naming the women, such an action would undermine the argument for ensuring defendants aren't named in cases such as this.

The real story here isn't her imo, we have no evidence she didn't believe something had happened, but the CPS. They've repeatedly had issues now with the cases they've chosen to go ahead with only for it to fall flat in court and here they even seem to be misrepresented the CCTV evidence to secure a conviction.

downquark1 · 09-02-2016, 16:07

If there's no witnesses and no evidence it doesn't strike me as odd the case was decided quickly.

Osem · 09-02-2016, 16:15

This wasn't a rape or anything like it. Given the CCTV evidence, God only knows what was in her mind or indeed those who thought taking this to court was justified in any way. So what do you suggest happens in cases like this and there's no supporting evidence? The innocent male victims just suck it up and bear the collateral damage whilst their accusers carry on regardless unhindered through anonymity or accountability?

Given the circumstances and the outcome I don't see any reason why this woman shouldn't be named now. It might make her think a bit more before making wild, unsubstantiated accusations.

Ignitionnet · 09-02-2016, 16:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

The real story here isn't her imo, we have no evidence she didn't believe something had happened, but the CPS.

Umm he was prosecuted for 'sexually penetrating' her - putting some part of his anatomy inside her. I'm pretty sure that she'd have known for a fact whether this happened or not rather than having to 'believe' it.

**Damien** · 09-02-2016, 16:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem

This wasn't a rape or anything like it. Given the CCTV evidence, God only knows what was in her mind or indeed those who thought taking this to court was justified in any way. So what do you suggest happens in cases like this and there's no supporting evidence? The innocent male victims just suck it up and bear the collateral damage whilst their accusers carry on regardless unhindered through anonymity or accountability?

I have already said that he shouldn't have been named and the CPS should be held accountable for pursing cases where there isn't any evidence. However in the case of the women you also need evidence she lied to take action against her.

I don't like the naming of defendants unless found guilty as a general rule and I don't like the naming of accusers unless they've been found guilty of perverting the course of justice. That is an entirely consistent position to hold.

Osem · 09-02-2016, 16:35

I haven't suggested taking action against her - merely naming her so she's in the same boat as he is. If there was some evidence of a deliberately malicious accusation then I'd fully support action against her.

**Damien** · 09-02-2016, 16:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem

I haven't suggested taking action against her - merely naming her so she's in the same boat as he is. If there was some evidence of a deliberately malicious accusation then I'd fully support action against her.

Ok but I would rather neither was named so that matters of guilt and lying are established by the courts rather than the pubic trying to do so via limited information.

I would also like to see an inquiry into how the CPS have been dealing with these cases because this isn't the first time this has happened. This never should have seen the inside of a court room.

Escapee · 09-02-2016, 18:33

The guy clearly says in the interview that he passed her in half a second, was holding a newspaper in one hand and the strap of his bag in the other. It was apparently clear from cctv evidence that in no way did he touch her. He says in the interview he was accused of putting his hand up her skirt.

If it's true that she accused him of such a thing and the cctv shows it was impossible, she deserves to be named and deserves a spell in prison.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35531436

pip08456 · 09-02-2016, 20:43

As this link also contains the cctv footage it shows even better that the case should never have been brought.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rush-hour.html

OK I know it's the Mail but...

Ramrod · 09-02-2016, 21:51

I read that the prosecution also doctored the cctv evidence (slowed it down to half speed) to make it appear that he was close to her for longer.