A case in which two young men have been accused of horrific sexual offences has raised questions about how the police and prosecution operate and how the courts should treat evidence from a child.
FAMILY BREAKDOWN
Wolverhampton Crown Court heard today that the child, an eight-year-old girl, had been staying with relatives. Her father was estranged from her mother.
She was distressed about the separation and wanted them to be reconciled. Her mother was working away and the father had custody. The nature of his work involved night shifts.
On such days as he had night shifts over a period of two years he had arranged for his daughter, the couple’s only child, to stay with his cousin, his cousin’s wife and his family. The family consisted of boys, although a half-sister was living nearby and stayed from time to time.
GIRL MADE SEXUAL VIDEO
His Honour Judge John Wait listened while the girl’s father said that in June 2015 he had found a video which his daughter had made of herself dancing naked in his sitting room and drawing attention to her private parts. He had told his estranged wife about the matter.
The court then heard the girl’s mother say she collected her daughter from school a fortnight later in June 2015. The mother picking her up was a rare occasion. She confronted her daughter with the information about the video. The girl immediately blamed one of the boys she was staying with. He had, she told her mother, put his ‘nunu’ into her ‘nunu.’ It had hurt, she said. Her account became worse. He had put it into her mouth and into her bottom. ‘White stuff’ had come out of it, the girl’s mother reported she said. She had immediately taken her daughter to a drop-in centre and from there to the hospital. At the hospital she was examined by a doctor and the police were called.
DISCREPANCIES IN EVIDENCE
The police woman took the witness stand. She had filled out a Rape And Serious Sexual Assault (RASSO) form. The form showed that when she asked the girl if any of the other brothers were involved, she said categorically ‘No’.
But in a filmed interview, shown earlier today to the jury, the girl said the boy’s older brother had done things to her and to his half-sister. He had lifted up her dress of the latter and put his hands on her thigh. This she had not reported to her mother in the car. In addition, the first boy only put his ‘nunu’ ‘on’ hers, not in it.
As the film progressed, the prosecutor suddenly stopped it and the jury were sent out. In their absence, he explained to the judge the film should have been edited to take out material which was ‘not relevant’.
CHARGES REDUCED – OTHERS DROPPED
Christian Voice understands that only the day before, charges of rape against the two brothers had been dropped and replaced by charges of sexual assault. This happened after the judge told the prosecution that medical evidence could not support the graver charges. So the parts of the video in which the girl alleged penetration were supposed to have been edited out, but stayed in.
As a result of the way the prosecution seemed to be making it up as they went along, the jury spent much of the day walking to and from the jury room to their court benches. What they made of the girl’s mother repeating rape and sodomy allegations which were not now on the charge sheet will remain with the seven women and five men, good and true.
This ministry also understands that the girl also expanded her original allegations to encompass younger siblings of the family. They were interviewed and arrested and only after some time were they told charges would not be preferred against them.
CHILD NOT REALLY CROSS-EXAMINED
The girl was cross-examined by video link to a room in the court building in which she was sat with a court official. She came across as a bubbly and friendly child. But the cross-examination was less than robust on orders of the judge following much case law on this subject. A child cannot be subjected to the rigorous to-and-fro which would normally ensue. All the questions were given to this particular child in advance and after agreement with a court intermediary.
Why had she first said clearly that only one brother was involved and then expanded her allegation to four? Why had she alleged penetration and then back-tracked from that? Why had she recorded a video in which she was dancing naked and suggestively? What did she really think about her parents’ separation? These questions were never asked.
If a child cannot be closely cross-examined and without notice of the questions, how much is their evidence actually worth? Everyone wants to believe a child, but they can be mistaken, they can make things up, they can exist in a fantasy world, they can even tell lies, just as much as any adult.
ALL ALLEGATIONS DENIED
A transcript of an interview with the originally-accused boy was then read out as a dialogue with the prosecutor asking the original questions and a woman police officer replying as the accused. In the interview he denied all the allegations against him.
Out went the jury again as Judge Wait complained to the advocates about police officers putting themselves across as experts and drew attention to the ‘in’ versus ‘on’ discrepancy. ‘Too much material has gone before this jury which should not have done,’ he said.
The trial continues.
What is the Christian angle on this ?
Justice.
But that is a key point in all court cases.
This case, and the passing of the Children Act 1989, seems to give too much legal ‘clout’ to the say-so of a child. Especially one who danced and filmed herself in a provocative way.