Yesterday I was informed that in 2013 I physically
assaulted two people at my work. When I asked what I was supposed to have done
and to whom, I was told that this was confidential. When I asked whether there
was any physical evidence that I had assaulted these people, I was told that
there was none. There were no photographs. Neither of the complainants had gone
to a doctor. In fact there was no evidence at all that I had done anything wrong
apart from their witness statements. When I asked whether there was more than one
witness to each of the supposed assaults, I was told that there was only one.
In each case someone has accused me of physically assaulting them at some point
in 2013, but there was no more evidence than that. How am I to defend myself?
So if I don’t know who has accused me and I don’t
know what it is I am supposed to have done or when, I have no way of saying I
didn’t do that, because I don’t even know what that refers to. I might remember
generally that I have never physically assaulting anyone, but I can’t
specifically defend myself against an accusation unless I know what it is.
My guess is that if someone accused me of physically
assaulting them five years ago, but with no more evidence than their witness
statement, no-one would even bother to investigate. Likewise if I said that my
house was broken into five years ago, but I have no evidence for this apart
from my witness statement, the police are not going to waste any time trying to
discover the supposed criminals. If I say that I witnessed a murder, but there
is no evidence even that the supposed victim is dead let alone that I saw it,
my witness statement will not be taken seriously. I will likely be accused of
wasting police time.
I disagree with Alex Salmond politically, but
justice ought to transcend political difference. We have rules about evidence
for burglary, for murder, for physical assault and for fraud etc. that depend
on objectively verifiable facts. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty and
in order to be proven guilty there has to be evidence that proves that guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt. I am in no danger of going to jail for burglary
unless witnesses can establish that I broke into the house, my fingerprints
were found at the scene of the crime, the stolen goods were found in my house
or unless I make a confession. No judge is going to send me to prison because
of a single witness statement about a burglary that happened five years ago for
which there is no other evidence.
But somehow we have established a class of crimes,
which must be investigated even if there is only a single witness who states
something happened years ago and there is no other evidence at all. This single
witness statement which would not be enough to convict someone of burglary,
murder, physical assault or fraud, is taken seriously in only one type of case.
These cases always involve sex.
Why should there be a special class of crime for
which the normal rules of evidence are suspended? Would you feel safe if a
single witness could convict you of burglary, murder, physical assault or
fraud, even if there was no other evidence? I wouln’t. So why should that
single witness be enough to convict someone in a case involving sex?
There is something deeply unjust going on in the
world at the moment. People’s reputations are ruined because someone makes a
claim, which may or may not be true, but for which there cannot possibly be any
other evidence.
Imagine there was a ceilidh in Aberdeen in 2013 and
I went to it. Imagine if now in 2018 a man complains that I put my hand up his
kilt and sexually assaulted him. How am I supposed to prove whether I did or I
didn’t? The only witnesses are me and the man. Who are you supposed to believe?
There may be all sorts of reasons why this man wants to ruin my reputation. On
the other hand I may have assaulted him. But it is simply impossible for us to
find out now. He should have complained
there and then during the ceilidh in 2013. Perhaps then it might have been possible
to determine what happened. But there is no point whatsoever waiting five years
and then making claims that cannot be verified either way.
I have no idea what Alex Salmond did or didn’t do.
But I dislike intensely how people’s reputations are being ruined because of
accusations that cannot justly be proved one way or the other. We have already
seen how Cliff Richard’s life was shattered by accusations that turned out to
be false. Leon Britton died while being accused of abusing children based on
evidence that later turned out to be discredited. Other people’s lives have
likewise been ruined because of accusations about things that supposedly
happened decades ago.
Sexual crimes are as serious as any other crime and
people who commit them deserve to be punished severely, but the evidence that
convicts must be just as strong as in the case of burglary, murder, physical
assault and fraud. This is not least because sexual crimes are so serious, are
rightly severely punished and have a more damaging effect on someone’s
reputation than most other crimes.
I think Metoo has become a very dangerous
witch-hunt, which is leading to great injustice. For this reason it is deeply
immoral. The only way to stop it is this. People who make claims of any form of
sexual assault must be told that they have to make the claim immediately and
provide evidence which corroborates their claim to having been assaulted.
Making a statement that you were sexually assaulted five years ago without any
other evidence should have no more likelihood of convicting anyone than making
such a claim about a physical assault or a burglary.
There is not a special class of witness whose
evidence ought automatically to be believed. We do not in Britain think that
the witness statement of one man is worth that of two women. It would be
equally contrary to justice to suppose that when a woman accuses a man of
sexual assault that she ought automatically to be believed.
Women’s lives are being ruined by sexual assault and
to make it easier for them to convict those they accuse they are routinely
given anonymity. But the lives and reputations of those who are accused are
often ruined too. Cliff Richard, I suspect, is at least as damaged because of
the false accusations made against him than many victims of sexual assault. For
this reason only those actually convicted of sexual assault should have their
names revealed in the papers.
Whether innocent or guilty the name of Alex Salmond
is liable forever to be associated with whispers about sexual assault. If it
turns out that he is innocent, this will be very unjust indeed. It would be far
better if none of us knew about this case until and unless Mr Salmond is
convicted. But for the sake of justice let him also know what he is accused of,
let him have a chance to defend himself and if he is convicted of anything let
it require more than just his word against that of someone he perhaps hardly
even remembers.
