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?
The problem is that I can only very
generally remember 2013. I couldn’t tell you for certain what I was doing on
any day in that year. I simply don’t remember. I might be able to look up
diaries or check other sources of information, but otherwise if you asked me
what I was doing on November 15th, 2013 I wouldn’t have a clue. I couldn’t even
tell you with certainty that I was in the UK. I might have been on holiday.
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 Harvey Weinstein’s
lifestyle and morality, but justice ought to transcend differences of opinion.
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 wouldn’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 2020 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 Harvey Weinstein
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 conviction 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 as many victims of sexual
assault. For this reason, only those actually convicted of sexual assault
should have their names revealed in the papers.
Harvey Weinstein has been convicted, but none of really know what happened in the rooms where the crimes occurred. None of us know beyond a reasonable doubt, because all we have is conflicting testimony. We would all be justly terrified if we could be convicted of murder, theft or physical assault by a single witness who asserted with no more evidence than the mere testimony that we committed a crime.
Imagine if murderers could be sent to
the gallows merely because one witness said they killed. Imagine if there wasn’t
even a body, a weapon, or a fingerprint, but a single statement that had to be
believed put your head in the noose. Imagine what you would feel like standing
there waiting for the drop.