Dave Lee Travis acquitted of historic sexual offences

Dave Lee Travis acquitted of historic sexual offences

3
SHARE
Photograph: Matthew Lloyd/Getty Images [From The Guardian]
Photograph: Matthew Lloyd/Getty Images [From The Guardian]

On 13 February 2014, Dave Lee Travis – real name David Patrick Griffin – was acquitted of 12 counts of indecent assault. The jury were unable to reach a verdict on the final indecent assault count and the sexual assault count. The CPS have seven days to decide whether they wish to pursue a retrial on those two counts.

He stood trial accused of 13 counts of indecent assault and one count of sexual assault against 11 women.

He pleaded not guilty to all counts.

The alleged offences

Indecent assault was an offence under Sexual Offences Act 1956. That was repealed in 2004.

Sexual assault is an offence under Sexual Offences Act 2003. That came into force in 2004.

The reason for the different counts is that the single allegation of sexual assault relates to alleged behaviour after 2004. All other counts relate to alleged behaviour before 2004.

Both indecent assault and sexual assault encompass a very wide range of behaviour. Indecent assault can include penetration. After 2004, penetrative behaviour would be charged as assault by penetration (a more serious offence than sexual assault).

Background

He was a radio DJ and TV presenter in the 1970s and 1980s, best known for presenting the breakfast show on Radio 1 and Top of the Pops.

Allegations

The complainants alleged that DLT engaged in the following behaviour:

  • Groping a radio announcer’s breasts whilst she was on air.
  • Touching a journalist’s bottom whilst she was at his house to conduct an interview.
  • Touching a girl’s bottom whilst dancing at two British Airways parties.
  • One of the complainants was aged 15 at the time of the alleged

This may appear to be a bit vague, but it is hard to get exact details of each allegation.

DLT’s evidence

The Mirror reported that he admitted being tactile but denied being predatory:

  • “Perhaps hugging is something which can be misconstrued by some people or if people are looking for an excuse they can say ‘he touched us’. I did hug a lot girls.”
  • “I do not have a predatory nature with women, I have a cuddly nature.”
  • “Maybe that’s what this is all about, but I am not predatory.”
  • “If I really like somebody I will put my arm around them and I might give them a peck on the cheek, I even do that with men, to make them feel comfortable and welcome to the place.”
  • “But nowadays you are not allowed to do that, put your arms around people and hug them.”

Additionally, in his police interviews, DLT commented that perhaps the complainants were fabricating the allegations in order to ‘jump on the bandwagon’. The Mirror reported that in interview, he said:

  • “Why wait 20 years until it comes out in one-sided press coverage?”
  • “This is just someone else who can smell money and is jumping into the game to see what they can get out of it.”

Readers will no doubt remember the LCJ’s comments in the Stuart Hall Att-Gen’s Ref case where Hall was severely criticised for making public statements labelling the complainants as liars. Had Dave Lee Travis been convicted, this may have been taken into account by the sentencing judge. In my view that would have been wrong for two reasons. The first is that DLT seems to have only made these comments in his police interview, not to the press (though they have been reported) and secondly that there is a principle that a defendant should not be punished for the way he or she conducts their defence. The ‘punishment’ for not telling the truth is the loss of credit for a guilty plea. The fact that a defendant has lied giving evidence or lied in police interview should act as a factor by which to increase the sentence.

The jury note

On the morning of their third day of retirement, the jury sent a note to the Judge that caused a fair amount of interest on the internet :

This appeared to be a bad sign for Mr Travis. However, the verdicts were not delivered until the next afternoon. As jury deliberations are secret, we will never know what the significance of this question was.

Majority direction

On 13 February 2014 at about 11.50am (after about 19 hours of deliberation) the jury were given what is known as the ‘majority direction’.

A jury will be told when they first retire that they must reach a unanimous verdict. Since 1974 juries have been allowed, in certain circumstances, to reach a majority verdict. This is a verdict of 11-1 or 10-2.

When the Judge gives a majority direction, s/he will tell the jury that they should still try and reach a unanimous verdict. The jury will then go and think about it and can return a majority verdict if the numbers are as above.

Maximum sentences for the offences

It is important to remember that historic allegations are sentenced on the basis of the law at the time, that is to say, the penalties are as they were at the time of the offences.

The reason for this is that there is a principle of law against retrospective sentencing which prohibits imposing higher sentences than were available at the time the offences were committed. That means that the Judge is restricted by the maximum sentence at the time, he or she does not need to estimate what the defendant would have been sentenced to if the defendant was sentenced at the time. (See below for more details)

Indecent assault

For indecent assault, the maximum sentence depends on the gender and age of the victim:

Female victims, offence committed on/after 16 Sept 1985 10 years

Female victim, offence committed prior to 16 Sept 1985 five years, if the girl was under 13, otherwise two years’

Male victims 10 years

Sexual assault

For sexual assault, the maximum sentence is 10 years.

The law in this area is complicated and advice should always be sought. For our Australian readers, NSW firm Prime Lawyers offer information and guidance on the issues surrounding sexual offences.

The approach to sentencing historic sexual offences

Here are some basic principles from the guideline case on sentencing historic sexual offences, R v H 2012 2 Cr App R (S) 21:

1) The offence of which the defendant is convicted and the sentencing parameters (in particular, the maximum available sentence) applicable to that offence are governed not by the law at the date of sentence, but by the law in force at the time when the criminal conduct occurred.

 2) Article 7(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights prohibits the imposition of a heavier penalty than one “applicable” at the time when the offence was committed.

 3) Although sentence must be limited to the maximum sentence at the date when the offence was committed, it is wholly unrealistic to attempt an assessment of sentence by seeking to identify in (2013) what the sentence for the individual offence was likely to have been if the offence had come to light at or shortly after the date when it was committed.

 4) Similarly, if maximum sentences have been reduced, as in some instances, for example theft, they have, the more severe attitude to the offence in earlier years, even if it could be established, should not apply.

 5) As always, the particular circumstances in which the offence was committed and its seriousness must be the main focus. Due allowance for the passage of time may be appropriate. The date may have a considerable bearing on the offender’s culpability.

Here is more information about prosecuting and sentencing allegations of historic sexual abuse.

Sentencing for sexual assault

DLT would have been sentenced according to the existing sentencing guideline for sexual offences. This does not apply to indecent assault. It will remain applicable until 1 April 2014 when the new guideline will come into force.

The guideline that applies to sexual assault is here (see numbered page 31 onwards)

Consequences of a conviction for sexual offences

Generally, a conviction for a sexual offence results in the offender being placed on the sex offenders register. This is known as ‘notification’ as the offender has to notify the police of certain details such as where he or she lives, if they are staying away from their main address, their bank details etc. The length of the notification depends on the sentence they receive. There is fact sheet here.

Offenders convicted of sexual offences usually are able to be made subject to SOPOs – Sexual Offences Prevention Orders. There is a factsheet on SOPOs here.

Indecent assault

In relation to indecent assault, a SOPO may only be made if the victim is aged under 18 or the offender is sentenced to 30 months or more.

A conviction or caution for indecent assault will result in the offender’s inclusion on the adult and child barred list subject to the consideration of representations. This means that they will be prevented from working with children and vulnerable adults, but they do have the opportunity to make representations as to why such a prohibition should not apply to them.

Sexual assault

A SOPO may be made where the victim was under 18 or the offender was sentenced to imprisonment or a community order lasting at least 12 months.

As with indecent assault, a conviction or caution for sexual assault will result in the offender’s inclusion on the adult and child barred list subject to the consideration of representations.

What now for DLT?

The Prosecution have a week to consider whether they wish to have a re-trial on the two counts on which the jury could not agree. We will look at this in a bit more detail next week.

This news piece was made possible by Prime Lawyers.

3 COMMENTS

  1. […] But is it the case that, whilst it may be damaging to some defendants, there is no real harm to the Prosecution with the current position? One thing that struck me with the Bill Roache trial is the way that the defence did not just raise the Jimmy Savile ‘issue’ to deal with it, but used it to their advantage – ”the police investigation had been “infected” by the abuse allegations made against Jimmy Savile and other celebrities. The “spectre” of Savile loomed large, said Roache’s barrister, Louise Blackwell QC.” (this argument also featured in the Dave Lee Travis trial). […]

LEAVE A REPLY