Freddie Starr “groped teenage girl” – what’s the consequences?

Freddie Starr “groped teenage girl” – what’s the consequences?

66
SHARE

Introduction

On 10th July 2015 the High Court ruled thatFreddie Starr groped a 15-year-old girl while she was attending a Jimmy Savile show“.

What are the consequences for the celebrity? Will he go to prison?  The short answer to the latter is ‘no’ – this was not a criminal case.

 

What happened?

There was an allegation made by Karin Ward that Mr Starr ‘groped’ Ms Ward in 1974 (when he was 31 and she was 15).

Ms Ward stated that Mr Starr “attempted to give her what was known as “a goose”. This occurred when a man “would put his hand under a girl’s buttocks and give it a squeeze and usually say ‘goose’ and, at the same time, reach for her breasts and say ‘honk, honk’“.

Apparently, according to Ms Ward, this “behaviour was normal for men at the time“, but “she recoiled because his smell reminded her of her stepfather, who had sexually assaulted her“.

This was not a jury trial in the Crown Court however, as the CPS had decided last year not to prosecute on the basis that there insufficient evidence on all the thirteen complaints bar one. For that sole case, there was no public interest in a prosecution.

It is assumed that Ms Ward was one of these, but we do not know which one.

Ms Ward gave an interview to Newsnight where she named Mr Starr and gave the account as set out above. It is not clear whether she attempted to use the CPS Victims Right to Review Scheme. She did not initiate a private prosecution.

Mr Starr sued Ms Ward for libel, due to what he said was the false allegation in that Newsnight interview.

 

What happened in Court?

The Judge was deciding whether or not the allegation made by Ms Ward was true. If it was not, then she would have had to pay damages to Mr Starr.

It was for Ms Ward to show that her allegation was true, and to show this on the ‘balance of probabilities’ – i.e., that it was more likely than not that events happened as she said.

This she managed to do. The Judge said that Ms Ward “has proved that it was true that he groped her – an underage schoolgirl – and humiliated her by calling her a ‘titless wonder’“.

As a consequence, Mr Starr will have to pay Ms Ward’s legal costs. Apparently these were estimated to be ‘close to £1 million’. For those who are used to legal aid, this is an inconceivable amount – it would have been about 1% of that had it been a criminal legal aid case.
Does this mean he’ll go to prison?

No.

Firstly, there is a much lower standard of proof in a civil case – balance of probabilities rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.

Secondly, the issues are different. In this case, for example, there would have been no consideration of what Mr Starr’s state of mind was.

As a lawyer, I probably shouldn’t say this, but the best advice is not to go to court unless you can possibly avoid it. Mr Starr has learned this lesson in a very expensive way.

He had very little to gain by bringing this legal case, and a lot to lose. And here, he has lost big. Although this does not have any impact on his good character in the sense understood by criminal lawyers, and it is emphatically not a conviction, there is now a finding of a civil court that Mr Starr sexually assaulted someone and then lied about it.

SHARE
Dan is a barrister at 2 Dr. Johnson’s Buildings practising in crime.

66 COMMENTS

  1. He wanted to humiliate his victim for daring to bring to light what he did to her in the first place and to attempt to teach her another lesson about his power through his “celebrity”, money and male arrogance over her; this time it backfired on him spectacularly. Serves him right.

    And I was not in the least bit sympathetic to the confused old man standing in front of the world’ press crying when he originally learnt he would not be charged with sexual assault by the CPS while that may well be who he is now it was not who he was at the time he chose to grope/sexually assault a child.

      • He brought it on himself ? I think not Dan, surely Ms Ward brought this on him. Everyone seems to have conveniently forgot that, had Mr Starr not fought back, he might well have followed DLT, Rolf Harris, Max Clifford in the CPS’ Showtime at Southwark Crown Court Series. Ironically enough, some believe he’s been cast so he may as well, play the part for real. Hopefully it won’t come to that but I wouldn’t put it past this lot.
        Well done Freddie, at least you fought back ! A shining example to us all !

      • Well said, rabbitaway. Of course he didn’t bring this on himself, Dan. Ward started it all. How would YOU feel is someone said something about you which painted you in the same way…and it was taken up by the police and press????? Remember your words, because one day, this could happen to you too, for ANY woman can now say ANYTHING and she will be believed, so tightly sewn up have the feminists got this now….It is outrageously horrendous and all of us should be shaking in our shoes, for all it takes is one WitchHunter to point the finger and shout “Burn The Witch!” and off we go, sliding down into hell, after all these poor men who’ve had their lives torn apart in this shocking way.

    • If you are going to call yourself a high fallutin name at least get your facts right: it was an “attempted grope”. Apparently you didn’t actually read the article and about the burden of proof.
      We still do not know what really happened.
      But we do know the CPS decided not to proceed with charges against Starr or Glitter upon Ward’s claims.

      • If you were directing that comment to me “it was an attempted grope” oh it’s okay to attempt to grope a child is that what you’re saying? I hope you don’t have children. However it sounds like a hand on her butt was not an attempted but an actual grope.

        • What EVIDENCE do you have, or are you merely accepting the word of a convicted fraudster, without any doubt whatsoever? And if so, if I said something outrageous about you, which was false and painted you as a pervert, to the point where the police questioned you and your reputation was smeared over the front pages, how would YOU react?????

    • Biggest load of feminist nonsense I’ve read in a long time. No, Freddie wanted to clear his name..respect to him for that. Sadly, he got an oaf of a judge who decided Ward had ‘proven’ her case. Please, explain to me HOW she had ‘proven’ anything at all??? You see, I know women lie, for many, many reasons..and I also know that NO-ONE can ‘prove’ anything when there is NO evidence and NO witness to any allegation….and even a witness, in some of these ‘all girls together cases’ may well be lying their heads off…so I’ll stick to actual evidence…There wasn’t any at all, other than she was sitting behind Freddie during a TV programme..and that was it, folks…RESPECT to Freddie Starr for having the courage to take her to court..and shame on the judge who made such an idiotic decision, in my view.

  2. Entirely. Silly ass. Never sue for libel even if you are right, it only keeps the libel alive for a bit logner.

  3. So claims of an ATTEMPTED goose and some nasty words 40 years ago and a mass of derogatory media tales plus a year of a stressful Yewtree investigation mean a man is financially destroyed and some posters think that’s AOK. Talk about revenge being a dish best served cold.
    The message here is take it & shut up no matter what distress it causes you.
    Odd that none of Ward’s claims were accepted by the Yewtree investigators (who were these 13 other claimants who jumped on the bandwagon ?) nor where her claims about the hapless Gary Glitter- surely a sitting target- accepted.
    What a truly nasty country Britain is becoming.

    • No, I was addressing this case, which Mr Starr decided to bring against the complainant. He didn’t to sue her.

    • A country which displays intolerance to paedophilia should hold it’s head up high and beam with pride at it’s justice system occasionally creaking into life to deliver justice on behalf of victims nothing nasty about that unless of course you’re a paedo.

  4. Amazing that nobody pointed the judge to this quote from Karin herself on the Fanstory website he took little interest in.

    I do not think you’ve “botched” the job in any way, Kat – you paint a Dickensian picture of this new “school,” and I’m sure that was your intention – the barely disguised bars on the windows, the draconian rules about having only three outfits, the warning her lambie will be torn to shreds if others learn it has sentimental value for her. And again with the adults who refuse to listen to a thing she has to say, as if it is automatic that she would just make everything up for some bizarre reason. As always, your writing is impeccable with natural-sounding dialogue, excellent detail of setting, strong character development.
    Written 23-Jun-2010
    reply by the author on 25-Jun-2010
    Thank you so much. I’m glad you didn’t feel I botched the job. Subsequent chapters are going to be more difficult because I was drugged and the memories are horribly vague. Fortunately, I have reconnected with ……. others who were at Duncroft with me. Between us, we are piecing together our memories of events. It is actually much worse than I recall!

    What a legal shambles. If this woman knows her onions, I’m a Frenchman.

  5. Lots of attempts at victim blaming here. Which I reject completely total respect to Karin Ward for daring to speak up. It’s like this dirty old men who feel up children are wise not to sue their victims for libel. When you spit in the air take care it does not come back to hit you in the face.

    • What victim? There was no trial here. Her word against his. No evidence was brought into this. Just a judge’s opinion.
      Self appointed victim with no evidence, perhaps.

      If the Yewtree investigators had no evidence to make a case for this, they must have had really nothing here, since they managed to get convictions with some pretty weak stuff in some of the other cases.

      • The victim is the Karin Ward who the judge identified as having told the truth about what Freddie Starr did to her. Such hostility towards victims is exactly why they are afraid to come forward in the first place.

        • I am not hostile towards “victims”. I am hostile towards your logic, where when a man is convicted, the Court’s always right, but when he’s acquitted you will say “there’s a chance he did it anyway”. Mistakes are made both ways. Your blind trust in authorities is unhealthy, history has taught us that often the most corrupt organisations have been those protected by the badge of authority.

          If we were to follow your logic, we could do without juridical system altogether: the victim is always right, her word is true and #ibelieveher

          In this case no man has been convicted. A judge in a civil case has determined that the likelihood of her words is reasonable. There is no logical or necessary connection between seriousness and probability.

  6. No, Brian, there was not enough for “beyond reasonable doubt” – but apparently enough for “balance of probabilities”.

  7. * the best advice is not to go to court unless you can possibly avoid it *
    * Mr Starr has learned this lesson in a very expensive way *

    A bit of “victim blaming” here? It does seem a puzzle here as to what a person should do in the way the law behaves. Starr was always on a hiding to nothing anyway. Ward made clear via the Media that she had no money so Starr was never going to get a payout. However, if he didn’t sue, then he would be subject to the comments as per David Icke: “He never sued me, so it proves I’m telling the truth”.

    One thing seems for sure, nobody can say Starr only did it for the money, rather than a somewhat helpless attempt to garner public justice.

    Some years ago, Broadmoor funded an inmate to sue the Daily Mirror for making various wild claims about inmates watching porno/paedo videos. The chap eventually won his case. He was libelled. However, the Mirror lawyers successfully argued that since he was a criminal he had no reputation to lose and his damages were awarded as 1p by the judge to demonstrate he was libelled, but in law was entitled to no damages. A glorious failure perhaps. Interestingly the Broadmoor manager who championed that inmate was Alan Franey who has since, in effect, been grotesquely slandered by the newspapers, as a friend of Savile.

  8. “Nobody can say Starr only did it for the money” Granted as Ward had none.

    The best thing Mr Starr could have done was . . . nothing. The short public memory would soon have washed Ms Ward down the plughole of history.

    • Ward was/is the glue that holds the Savile story together. It was her ‘story’ book that led irresponsible hacks to more storytellers. How relieved they must be !

      • It’s not rocket science that the person most likely to lie about rape (and sexual assault) is the rapist or the sex offender. And still they walk away scot free.

        • Your commentary about Starr is as Robesperian as your nom de plume. Rape? let’s get real here for a moment. Karin Ward has stated quite categorically throughtout this entire process that she took part in whatever she claims she did, qute willingly. She did not do it for love or teenage crush, she say she did it because she was offered cigarettes and/or trips to a TV Studio. The one and only reason the word “rape” is even used is because of the notion that she was underage and therefore, even though she was giving consent, the law insists she cannot give consent. The law takes away her rights as a sentient woman. The media throughout the height of the vilification of Starr was stating Ward was 14. We know from the court that she was in fact 15 years and 345 days old on the date she encountered Starr. So plainly the law has her technically within their ambit. That this libel case was adjudging to “probity” when, so far as I can tell no attempt whatsoever was ever made by the defendant to correct the wholly misleading impression created by the media, just adds further injustice to the mix. I hope that when real rapists get off on a technicality, you are just as supportive of the law as writ then. Meanwhile, using the word rape in relation to what Starr was even alleged to have done seems quite overwrought and symptomatic of the reign of terror at play all around Operation Yewtree.

          • I wish I could find my earlier post where I observed that when men in the online world find that they can’t subjugate me they start to attack my profile. Starting first with the name I have chosen and where I have used an avatar the move onto that on the attack. I haven’t even read your post beyond the first line but it’s shaping up nicely already to be a bleating of male egomania.

          • Okay now back to your post. Rapey, letchy men should keep the letchy rape, creepy hands to themselves. They should not put them on any woman without her explicit consent and never ever on a child of any age and certainly not on a child of 15. It’s a very simple.

            If you struggle with this then you are an animal and you belong in a zoo. If you blame the victim for what a rapey, creepy, letchy old man who cannot keep his gropey hands to himself did because he has zero self control and appears to only be guided by his need to justify the existence of his penis then you are no better than him.

          • Ah…. I wish I could find my earlier post where I observed that when wommen in the online world find that they can’t subjugate me they start to attack my penis.

            And your views on offering sexual favours for cigarettes and travel are no doubt just as principled.

  9. So he did not rape her? Nice of him. He should still have kept his hands to himself.

    He sued and he lost. End of story. To hell with him.

        • The crucial factor was that it all boiled down to a choice between the word of Starr and the word of Ward. As Ward’s testimony was a key part of the media’s justification in portraying Jimmy Savile as ‘the world’s most prolific abuser’ – a conclusion backed by the child-scare industry and government itself, it was utterly futile for Starr’s defence to try to exonerate him on this basis because to find for him the judge would have also had to bring into question Ward’s testimony about Savile. This was obviously never, ever going to happen. The repercussions from the attack-dogs of the child-scare industry who have only just stopped baying for the resignation of Alison Saunders after she revoked her decision not to prosecute Jenner can only be imagined. Having spent months on bail under the stress of allegations of abuse, why would Starr re-enter the fray and bring a law suit? The judge did not address Starr’s motivations at all but it is clear that his sole intention was to clear his name and get rid of the stigma that surrounds accusations of this nature, whether proven or not. Freddie Starr always certainly believed himself not to have been an abuser and not to have had any links with any purported serious abuses by Savile and was simply trying to obtain justice to clarify that. Instead the child-sex abuse witch-hunt which is scourging the U.K. has chewed him up and spat him out again.

          • As with all sex offences had the offender but chosen to keep his hands to himself and to conduct himself appropriately he would not have found himself in the situation which he did. He has no-one to blame for it but himself. Typically words like “witch hunt” “vindictive” etc are bandied around. Attempts by abusers, perpetrators and rape apologists at victim blaming. Take responsiblity for your actions and if you can’t do the time (or face the consequences of them) it is best to keep your gropey, letchy, rapey hands to yourself.

          • “it was utterly futile for Starr’s defence to try to exonerate him”

            What case are you talking about? Starr wasn’t the defendant in the case referred to in Dan’s article, and although he was arrested last year, no charges where brought, so he wasn’t a defendant in any case then either.

          • * What case are you talking about? Starr wasn’t the defendant in the case referred to in Dan’s article *

            Of course. You’re right. He was the victim and Ms Ward was the perpetrator. At least I think that’s how Starmer’s Law is meant to work.

  10. Indeed LibEgSor but we are pissing into the wind- although now I come to think of it that’s a male metaphor.

    Behave, Andrew!

  11. So have any of you any idea about the epidemic of false allegations and the damage and destruction to innocent, wrongly convicted people’s lives?? In countries where criminal injuries payments have been axed there has been an 80% drop in allegations. Time for the UK to follow suit and change it’s belief that all “victims” are telling the truth. They are not.

    • It’s not “the UK” who believes it. It’s just the powerful Elites in the Establishment, supported by the mainstream media. Round and round and round it goes, who’ll be next, no-one knows.

    • Derail. Anytime rape or sexual assault is discussed someone will always attempt, just like you did, to derail the conversation into one about false allegations and rape apologists jump on it with glee. The two do not compare, and false allegations can occur in any crime and is not unique to rape. There are plenty (millions) of rapists out there who falsely claim to be falsely accused, when in fact they actually are a rapist, as accused, and they get away with it free to rape again.

    • “In countries where criminal injuries payments have been axed there has been an 80% drop in allegations”

      Do you have a source for this statistic?

  12. So, if I recap…..CPS says not enough evidence to proceed against Starr, but alleged victim makes her allegation against him public. Starr then sues, but judge decides they know best about something which allegedly took place 40 years ago and decides he did it.

    Is this what our once great legal system has come to? This sounds more like vindictiveness gone rogue. Hey, if we can’t get him criminally we’ll take the opportunity to get him via the civil courts.

    Let’s bring back ducking stools or trial by boiling water, it seems the logical step.

    Finally shame on Dan for his usual PC right on response.

    • It was Mr Starr who chose to sue, Captain. He did not have to. Nobody took the opportunity to get him via the civil courts – he chose to try his luck. And lost. How hard is that to understand?

      • What Andrew says. It would be a different matter if this was a criminal prosecution, or if Mr Starr had been sued by Ms Ward. But here it was Mr Starr who chose to sue. He didn’t have to do that, it was his choice.

        • @ Andrew & DanBunting

          My point is that the woman made allegations in public, so what was Starr supposed to do? You two seem to say “hey just suck it up” but why should he if he feels that his reputation has been damaged ?

          My second point is that the judge could not possibly know “on the balance of probabilities” that Starr was guilty as it was a) one version against another and b) its was 40 years ago. Just do some research into the human mind and memory.
          Is this justice? Is this fairness ? Apprently you two are quite content with an innocent (remember no CPS prosecution) person having very damaging alleagation made against him, which have already been disregarded by the CPS.
          The response from both of you is shameful. You seem to be content to sit there and think “well he did anyway, so he got what he deserved” even blaming Starr for trying to defend himself. FFS !!!

          Having said this I should be familiar now with Dan’s liberal lefty attitude so no surprises.

          • I agree with you on the problem of memory, the Courts are far behind the science. It is one concern I have about prosecuting cases from 40 years ago. If he had been prosecuted, or if she had sue him, then it would be a different matter.

            But Mr Starr did have a choice. He could have issued a strong denial (even challenged her to sue him for libel) and left it that – pointing out, if he wished, that this far down the line it would be impossible for a Court to properly resolve the matter. That would have been the sensible course.

            As it was, the Judge had to determine the matter as best he could. A link to the judgment has been posted, and it seems to me that the Judge has done his job properly and reached a conclusion that he was entitled to meet.

  13. And it would appear had Ms Ward sued Starr in the Civil Court she would have won there. So maybe the CPS were wrong not to pursue this case to trial and allow a jury to decide.

    • Not necessarily.

      1) Ironically, there is a statute of limitations on civil cases due to the perceived unfairness of a defendant having to deal with old cases. I’ve never understood why there is a waivable limitation period on civil cases, where the worst that can happen is someone pays damages, but not in criminal cases, where peoples liberty is at stake.

      2) There is a different standard of proof – beyond a reasonable doubt is much higher than the civil standard of balance of probabilities

      3) The CPS would also have to consider the public interest – is it in the public interest to prosecute for this. It seems that they decided not, which is correct.

    • WHAT case? A woman alleges she had her bum tickled, 40 years back and also alleges someone said something to her that she didn’t like? What MADNESS is this??????? Truly, Madly, Deeply Insane waste of money and Insanity Running Amok,driven by Insane Misandric Feminists and Victim Trawling Lawyers and all those with Ulterior Motives and Vested Interests! Sick to death of these messed up women who can’t cope with anything at all, other than masses of publicity and £compensation for themselves, of course….

      Freddie was absolutely right to take her to Court for libel. The judge was absolutely wrong in his ridiculous verdict, for she did NOT ‘prove’ that Freddie had done anything at all. She merely SAID he had and that is NOT proof, other than in this deeply corrupted legal system in the UK now, a country which once, I loved with all my heart, but which is now run by insane people FOR insane people, where lawyers decide on our lives and how they must be lived..and who gets what and who goes down….EVERY DECENT lawyer should be coming together with others of the same ilk to fight The Feminists, The Victim Trawling Lawyers, and all the others making OODLES of money from what is going on..to fight this shocking corruption of our justice (HA!) system, for now, no man is safe, nor woman either, for just an allegation alone is considered PROOF! Watch out folks, for if they can take Rolf down and turn him into The Devil Incarnate, they can do the same to you…….at any point in your life….

  14. None of the Yewtree cases have led to civil claims except Savile – and the beneficiaries under his will (distant relations and charities, there’s irony for you) have decide that it would not be honourable to defend.
    .
    In other cases there would probably be a limitation defence and while the court can waive it I do not think it would. This is not like the case of the attempted-rapist who won the lottery and who suddenly became worth powder and shot; to be precise he became worth powder and shot when a dishonest prison officer sold the story to the tabloids, and caused further suffering and terror to the original victim. These are people who have been in the public eye for years, rich and traceable. It is perhaps not surprising that there have been no civil claims. If, for example, one of Rolf Harris’s victims had asked for my advice I would have advised her that the chances are far better than evens that on an application for summary judgement on limitation grounds Harris would win – with costs.
    .
    I’m not sure that’s how the law should be but it’s certainly how it is.

    • Rolf Harris is NOT a paedophile and has suffered a massive miscarriage of justice! It is appalling what he has been put through. He was NEVER at Leigh Park and the police and CPS know this…On this claimant’s ridiculous story alone, he was branded a paedophile around the world…

      As to the other three main claimants, don’t even get me started!

      There was a Met. Police officer on Rolf’s jury…that is now official..the very same force as was dealing with Operation Yewtree…PFFFFFFFFFFFFT!!!

      There was NO CHILD PORN either, but the CPS didn’t tell the public this, did they? And they should NOT have charged him either! But they did ensuring hsi chances of a fair trial (HA!) were zilch…

      Was he set up? Yes, in my opinion, he was…..He was even sentenced on the same day as Andy Coulson but most major papers ran with Rolf’s story….

      Absoluely FUMING about what’s happened to him…for he would never EVER harm a child, ever….

      Remove ALL £compensation from sex abuse cases and watch the allegations drop and drop and drop…Germany removed it a while back…allegations dropped by around 80%. No surprises there then, eh!

      And don’t mention the ‘feminist’ word, else I shall self-combust!

      • As a FEMINIST (said it), feel free to combust. We’re the ones fighting to stop women being molested by men on trains, in the street, in the workplace, while out for drink. If you are happy to be molested and sexually assaulted by strangers go ahead, enjoy with my feminist blessings. For the rest of us who believe women, children and even men have the right to walk the earth unharmed and unmolested I’m speaking up for them.

  15. I have a lot of respect for Freddie for going ahead with trying to clear his name. He had been wrongfully accused by a woman who is a convicted fraudster. Tell me, please, HOW did Ward PROVE *anything* had taken place? This is the bit I don’t get. HOW did she PROVE it? The judge stated she did, but he did not state HOW this was proven. It’s the biggest load of baloney I’ve ever heard. Freddie should have won this case, without any doubt at all.

    I am truly raging over these narcissistic women lining up to say they have their bottoms pinched 40 years back and it’s ruined their lives, etc.etc.etc…..WHAT is wrong with them all? Narcissism? Autism? Compensation? SOMETHING is going on, BIGTIME…

    It was not ALL men who were doing this either. I was a young woman back then..and it happened to me just a few times, on the tube trains at rush hour..and it was NOT that bad at all…in fact, sometimes it was quite funny, because you knew there was a mischievous chappie around despite all the totally innocent looking faces….Usually it was done in fun..and as to the ‘touching your boobs and going ‘honk honk’ thing…nope, NEVER had that happen, never heard of it either…

    These women want to make out ALL men were doing this ALL the time..and it’s total bunkum! Interestingly, many of them wanted to be famous…and Ward admitted to doing sexual favours for Savile…(really???)

    Everything they come out with CANNOT be proven at all, in any way. It’s just their word, their memory..and that’s that.

    Man after man is going down, down, deeper and down..and even if a woman DID have her bottom pinched decades back, so WHAT? That is NO reason to tear a man’s life to pieces, unless you are a revengeful, mentally odd, vindictive so and so….with an eye for fame, attention and/or oodles of money.

    Freddie’s life has now been torn apart too…and that judge should be removed from his job, because there was NO proof, thus NOTHING can be PROVEN! Honest to Gods, some of these judges beggar belief, they truly do!

    Freddie didn’t ask for ANY of this…neither did any of the other men….and it’s way past time we had a national campaign against false allegations..and FAST.

    I hope Freddiei has enough to get to Spain, as he hopes to do..and that he’s able to live his life in peace now, the climate helping him physically too.

    Again, much respect to Freddie for trying to sort this out, not just for himself, but for all other men currently being libelled, slandered, investigated, on bail, charged, imprisoned, who’ve had their lives blown apart by selfish, whining women who are filled with poor, poor, pitiful me stories…..

    PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT!

    • No sympathy at all for Freddie Starr I hope he does fuck off to Spain, good riddance. He should have kept his hands to himself and once the game was up should not have pursued his victim for libel because now it’s known that she told the truth which means he did grope her. Dirty old man. Yours in feminist sisterhood.

  16. @danbunting

    Dan, what you say now is far more sensible than previous comments. Now you say that in reality Starr took the wrong tack in his response, and I agree with you on this and your suggestions as to how he should have proceeded. I still think the judge was wrong to decide in her favour and it sounds very much like he took the opportunity to find guilt in a civil court having been denied the opportunity in a criminal court. Operation Yewtree has become the modern day equivalent of the witch hunts and inquisitions.

    • Only if you’re a rapist or a sex offender with a criminal history past, present and presumably future would you bandy around words like witch hunt in the light of paedophilia, rape and sexual assault. If you’re not a rapist or a sex offender you have nothing whatsoever to worry about.

      • “If you’re not a rapist or a sex offender you have nothing whatsoever to worry about.”

        Or as your chum Robespierre put it “Je dis que quiconque tremble en ce moment est coupable; car jamais l’innocence ne redoute la surveillance publique.” (I say that anyone who trembles at this moment is guilty, because innocence never fears public scrutiny).

  17. This reads like a joke! Yes if Freddie Starr said and did these things he was wrong. If he did not he was still wrong IMHO to sue this woman. She had nothing and until he made it into such a big ‘thing’ as far as I was concerned he was an ageing comic from the 1970’s that would have been yesterday’s fish and chip wrappers. He sued Karin Ward. Having been on bail and the CPS chose that it was not in the public interest to prosecute him. This does not make him guilty or innocent. Karin Ward has only proven that she did not ‘lie’ based on the balance of probabilities. What I find far more alarming is that this man was able to sue his accuser. That must be wrong and if Karin Ward had lost the floodgates would have opened because everyone who had been accused, bailed and then had the charges dropped would be able to take civil action for damages (I beleive in this case it was £300,000. Plus court costs). Out against the person who had either rightly or wrongly accused them.
    This is not about Starr v Ward, it is far more serious. Can an accused person sue their accuser?
    Of course the judge HAD to find in Wards favour, but, it does not make either of them right IMHO. It is about the ability to Sue the person who accused you of a criminal act.
    This was the case of its type and hopefully the last.

LEAVE A REPLY