Sexual offences with civil , but not criminal, responsibility

punter99 - 20 Feb 22 10:31 AM

AB2014 - 17 Feb 22 12:59 PM

punter99 - 17 Feb 22 12:42 PM

AB2014 - 3 Feb 22 4:02 PM

punter99 - 3 Feb 22 3:21 PM

The Raith Rovers footballer, who has been in the news recently, is a rather interesting case, for a number of reasons.

He was never tried in a criminal court, and presumably that means he is not subject to the SO Act of 2003? That would mean, he does not have to register with the police, he can go abroad, without being harassed by immigration, and he does not have to endure the ritual humiliation, of having the police invade his home and question him, every few months.

I wonder if he is subject to an SHPO, because they can be imposed, even if somebody has not been convicted, provided the police can show he is a risk to the public. When you consider, that he does have several other criminal convictions, for assault, then that would potentially make him a high risk offender, in the eyes of a PPU.

The other odd thing, is that he was playing football for Clyde FC, until very recently, and nobody seemed to mind. It was only when he moved to Raith, that people suddenly noticed that an SO was playing football and got upset about it.

When Clyde FC signed him, they were aware of his past and they argued that he should be given a second chance. This was accepted by most people, at the time. So, what has changed? He has not reoffended. He does not appear to be a risk to the public. Is he really just a victim of bad publicity?

On the other hand, he has never served a sentence of any sort, for what he did. He has paid compensation to his victim, but that is all and he maintains his innocence.

Some intriguing questions spring to mind. Has he been 'punished' enough? Does he deserve a second chance? Should he be subject to the same restrictions on his life, that an SO convicted in a criminal court, has to put up with? Does it make a difference, that he is in a high profile occupation, by being a footballer, and not just an 'ordinary' SO?

Well, for a start he is in Scotland, so different laws and options may apply. Nonetheless, in the civil case judgement, he was called a rapist, so it is now a matter of public record. I won't dwell on the details, but it was made clear by the judge that both defendants should have been aware that in her inebriated state she was unable to give informed consent, so saying the victim consented isn't really a defence. Maybe the prosecution should have taken that into account, maybe not. I assume we've all seen those TV ads that happened to be running during a different high-profile case that centred on the ability to consent. It wouldn't take much to say, "Oh, I didn't think of it that way. I shouldn't have done that." That has never happened, but then this isn't about criminal responsibility, it's about accepting that you have done wrong, which is the first step towards rehabilitation/making sure you never do that again. Given that first-team players often have access to under-18s and so on, maybe it's a bigger public protection issue than it appears at first sight. Also given that the club like to portray themselves as part of a small-ish community (never been to Kirkcaldy, but it looks OK from across the Forth), it is also about how the club's management see themselves and their place in that community. This is obviously a very complicated issue, with implications that go beyond just playing football.

Now that the Andrew formally known as Prince, has paid off his accuser, it raises more questions about what kind of public protection is actually required, for somebody who has never been found guilty of a crime, but who is nevertheless assumed by most of the public to be guilty.

Remember, that (officially at least) the purpose of an SHPO is not to punish somebody for offences committed in the past, it is to protect the public from those who may commit offences in the future. Therefore the test of whether an SHPO is required is not, did they do it, but is there a risk they might do something in the future. When it comes to the footballer, he has multiple convictions for assault, as well as a civil court judgement that he is a rapist. That is plenty of evidence, to suggest he might offend again. But he is not subject to any SHPO.

Now consider the case of Alec Salmond, who was found not guilty. The Scottish govt did make it a requirement, that he should not be left alone with any woman in his office, when he was at work. That was a kind of unofficial SHPO, but arguably justified by the possible risk.

As for Mr Andrew Windsor, there may be a case for banning him from having any unsupervised contact with under 18s, just to be on the safe side. That is the logic, which we apply to any individual who has been accused of an offence related to children. For example, a father who has been arrested, but not yet charged, with image offences, can still be forced to leave the family home, on safeguarding grounds, even while they are under investigation and before they have been convicted of any crime.

(And yes, I do realise he is still officially a Prince, but it is surely only a matter of time....)

There are a few issues involved here. For a start, the son of the reigning monarch is automatically a prince. In fact, the grandchildren of the serving monarch are automatically princes and princesses. I'm guessing that if he doesn't agree to renounce the title, it might need an act of parliament to remove it. Being made Duke of York was a wedding present from his mum, but I don't know if she can ask for it back. 🎁

In the case of the politician, any employee or official can be made subject to certain restrictions in the workplace after a proper risk assessment. Assuming that pre-devolution laws still apply, any employer has a duty not to put any employee in a situation of potential harm without doing all they can reasonably do to prevent it. See, health and safety isn't always a bad thing when employers use it to justify their decisions. 😉

I would imagine that the last point would be a difficult one to assess. After all, he has no caution or conviction, and he has not accepted or admitted any liability. The police could apply for a Sexual Risk Order, I think, but his family can afford some VERY good lawyers. As his case is so high-profile, and he won't be involved in any public duties, is there anything to be gained from spending public money on that?

You are right about his lawyers being able to challenge an SRO, but what about the involvement of social services? They can intervene without any need for a court order, so there would be nothing that the lawyers could do about it.

If this were any normal family, then a safeguarding visit would have taken place. Prince William has 3 young children, so 'Uncle Andy' ought to be viewed as a potential risk to those kids, depending what access he has to them.