former Dragon's Den panelist trial

[onceuponalurker]

AIBU to not see all the threads about this now acquitted Dragon? Where is the outrage?

[MrsTerryPratchett]

I wonder if Mrs Dragon's Den is a MNer?

[Pedallleur]

We haven't heard the evidence and I'm sure he employed a very good and expensive barrister. I would think his wife is already considering divorce but let us not forget that he was 'addicted' to that website and is battling to overcome his addictions. Of course had it been some 'low-life' on benefits it would have been jail and the nonce-wing.

[Gunting]

It was down to him to make sure he wasn't having sex with a 13 year old. Just like it is someone's responsibility to make sure that the person they are having sex with isn't highly intoxicated.

Also even if he thought she was 17, buying sex from someone under 18 is illegal in Britain

[BlueJug]

Chicago is not "invested" in defending a scumbag. She is explaining why he was acquitted.

[LurcioAgain]

I'm sure any person with half a braincell is aware that "on an adult website" means "clicked the button saying they were over 18" not "the website verified a notarised copy of of the person's passport verifying that they were over 18".

I repeat my earlier question: why are you so invested in defending the indefensible?

[ethelb]

I don't understand what he was found not guilty of if he had sex with her.
Sexual exploitation includes gift giving for sex and i thought was illegal in this country.
The Government is currently discussing making sexual exploitation by adults of under 18 year olds easier to prosecute.
Wtf is going on?

[lljkk]

A jury in a court of law heard the full facts and found him Not Guilty.

[Scarydinosaurs]

If he was a person of limited intelligence, you could understand mistaking someone who is 13 as older than that- this is a successful businessman who was of above average intelligence: he knew how old she was and he didn't care.

[ethelb]

Chicagomd If you genuinely can't tell the difference between a 13 year old who has piled the slap on and an 18 year old then you either need your eyes checked or to alert the police you aren't safe around young women.
No, what you think isn't normal, people aren't thinking what you are thinking and no, it isn't ok.

[ethelb]

Lljkk not guilty of what though? Rape?

[Highsteaks]

Oh come on, how many 13 year olds could you look at and 100% categorically safely say 'yep, she is definitely over the age of consent'?

And if youre not sure, just don't go there.

[Scaredycat3000]

He met her though a Sugar Daddy website. Yuck yuck yuck. They had joined and made a profile and actively used on a website that, IMO, solely exists for young women to sell their bodies to rich old men. If you were looking for underage girls would this be the place to go? I genuinely don't know. I think I read he had asked her age, and she lied. When I was 12 I looked 16/18, I had some problems at that age as 18 yr olds thought I was flirting, rather than scared shit less, when I told them my real age. They ran a mile when they realised I was 12. Whilst what he's done is morally awful, at what point do you say he reasonably believed she was legal, would it be a forged passport, birth certificate, driving license? Not everybody grows up to be 5ft 6 and 9 10 stone. I'm going to assume he likes underage looking women, rather than them actually being underage. That's horrible but it is different from actively searching out underage girls. I would hope he is now a social and business pariah due to this, but I expect not. My neighbor I am told is a convicted pedophile of a child of infant school age, there is a constant stream of people visiting him and his wife, he raped his own GD FFS, I can barely look at him.

[Highsteaks]

But yes this

A jury in a court of law heard the full facts and found him Not Guilty.

is true.

[DilysPrice]

Just for information, there is a point earlier than which which you can't say "but I thought she was 16", and it's the child's thirteenth birthday. If someone meets a 12.11 year old in a nightclub to which she has gained admission with a forged passport then no amount of evidence that she looked 23 is admissible. After the age of 13 you are allowed to plead honest mistake about age and it's for the jury to decide whether to accept that, having heard both sides and presumably seen pictures of the girl at the time.

The offence is unlawful sexual activity with a minor btw not rape.

[DrSeussRevived]

Bloody bloody hell.

[Wardy1993]

Creepy for sure! His wife is an idiot. Anyone else thinking the parents of this 13 year old should have been keeping a closer eye on the little rascal?!

[diggerdigsdogs]

It's utterly indefensible. Totally. And I'm amazed that he got off.

Having said that at 13 I was 5'5'' and a c cup. And I remained that size until I was 20 and put on my fresher 15 entirely on my boobs it's not beyond the realms of possibility to get an age wrong. However, if you're having sex with them it bloody is your responsibility to check.

[BlackSwan]

His wife! Ohh poor stupid woman - I predict him leaving her asap now she's served her purpose and stood by him for the trial.

[BlackSwan]

And he paid the girls! That's not just child sex it's prostitution. Paid them in cash and by paypal(!) - what an error, the older one's mother saw the payment and called the police. All very strange.

The spin on this is unbelievable. He said he would never have sex with a child, yet he admits did! He only concocted the story about believing she was over 16 to get out of trouble.

[Pandopops]

She said she was 18 & her friend was 17, & he still thought this was perfectly acceptable, plus she had sent him photographs as requested by him.

Absolutely vile man.

[dustarr73]

Not all 13 year old are sweet and innocent.
Don't forget the girl signed on to the website herself,nobody forced her too .

Plus the parents should have been keeping a better eye on what she was up too.

[zippey]

We don't know what she looks like, so she might look of legal age. Everybody looks different. I think the key is that she was on an adult site. She also had a friend with her, and no action is taken against her so presumably she is of legal age. I think the judgement was correct.

I'm not sure why he wasn't done for prostitution though, saying money given was a gift seems like a get out of jail free card.

And technically he isn't a pedophile.

[prh47bridge]

Like some other posters I struggle with the idea that a 13 year old who is 5ft and weights less than 6 stone can be mistaken for a 17 year old. However, the jury saw her and decided it was reasonable for Richard to believe she was 16 or over. We are not going to see a photo of her so I have to accept the jury's view that she could indeed be mistaken for 17 year old.

He was also charged with paying for sexual services of a child. Believing she was 17 is not a defence to this charge so presumably the jury decided that the prosecution had not proved that the payments were for sex beyond reasonable doubt. I don't know but the fact he paid the same amount to her friend with whom he did not have sex may have played a part in the jury's decision.

It was down to him to make sure he wasn't having sex with a 13 year old. Just like it is someone's responsibility to make sure that the person they are having sex with isn't highly intoxicated.

As the law stands neither of these statements is true. They may be morally true but legally they are not.

If she had been under 13 his belief as to her age would have been irrelevant. For a girl aged 13 or over the defendant can argue that he reasonably believed the girl was aged 16 or over. There is no requirement in law for him to have validated that belief.

Similarly there is no requirement to breathalyse a potential partner before having sex. The question in law is whether the defendant reasonably believed that the victim had "freedom and capacity" to consent. Juries do not generally expect defendants to have checked. They do, however, expect them to spot if the victim is clearly so intoxicated that no-one could reasonably believe they had capacity to consent.