former Dragon's Den panelist trial

[onceuponalurker]

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

[OwlCurrency]

Of course, one should check. But it isn't outside the bounds of possibility to make a mistake.

The circumstances have been thoroughly examined in court. They did not find evidence of a deliberate crime.

Personally, I could not pick out a thirteen year old and an eighteen year old with absolute certainty. I know that I couldn't. There is nothing about a thirteen year old or an eighteen year old that makes it possible to know for sure.

[Andrewofgg]

Before 2003 mistake was generally no defence; now it is, provided the girl is 13 or up and the jury think it is more likely than not that he believed she was 16 or up and that the belief was reasonable. Like it, lump it, that's the law now. It was changed without the Ministers responsible in either House saying a word about it.

She herself did not give evidence, which probably made the jury doubtful to begin with. He obviously gave convincing evidence about the circumstances of the mistake - her being on an 18+ website, going to clubs or pubs with him, how she appeared - and the jury reached its verdict.

And in English law his age is irrelevant. If a young woman of sixteen or up does consent to intercourse with a man decades older, no crime is committed. The man may be a dirty dog, but that's not a crime.

[OwlCurrency]

Indeed, he is clearly vile. But if there is any doubt that he was duped, it would be a far greater crime to imprison him.

[MaisyMooMoo]

I suspect many more young girls are on these sites and not through choice. Trafficked girls, made up to look older. He should have known this was a possibility and made the relevant checks.

[DrSeussRevived]

It wouldn't be a crime, though it might be a miscarriage of justice.

I wish there was a crime of "causing sexual harm by lack of due care and attention" - he was reckless as to her age. This would also cover the case where the man "went into the wrong room" and had sex with an unconsenting woman who he "believed" to be his girlfriend.

Andrew, thanks for the background. Has there ever been a campaign to change that law back, do you know?

And if you can't reliably tell the difference between a 13 and 18 year old, you should steer clear of activities (serving them alcohol, selling them cigarettes, teaching them to drive, putting your dick in them) until you can or unless you have some other evidence.

[OwlCurrency]

But what irrefutable evidence could you of a person's age?

[Drinkstoomuchcoffee]

What MrsTerryPratchett said.

Bars and off licences are prosecuted for not taking reasonable steps to establish age before selling alcohol/cigarettes.

Why is the same standard not applied to rich men exploiting teens for sex?

[DrSeussRevived]

Passport, driving license, student union card, youn person's railcard, etc etc

[DrSeussRevived]

Did he even google her - check her Facebook? Ask her friend? Double check - oh, what was your DOB again?

When we tried to drink at 17 rather than 18, bar staff would sometimes spot check DOB knowledge and that was many years ago.

[LurcioAgain]

It's disheartening to think that the law on selling cigarettes and alcohol to under 18s is actually tighter than the law on having sex with under 16s. BBecause it's hard to tell the difference between say a 17 and an 18 year old, shops ha signs up saying if you look under 25 we will ask for ID. Note - a seven year margin of error. If men like the acquitted in this case could be persuaded to apply the same reasoning and say to themselves "doesn't look over 25, don't stick your dick in her" they wouldn't end up in court.

[DrSeussRevived]

And again - why risk it, if you can't tell the difference and can't get evidence? Your dick won't fall off if you miss out on a shag that might've been legal, might not.

[OwlCurrency]

But those can all be faked.

Also, asking to see a passport is rude. It's socially sketchy to accuse someone of lying and ask them for documentation to prove otherwise.

[PosieReturningParker]

One has to wonder what he was actually looking for picking such a young, no matter that he says he thought she was seventeen, on that site? She must have looked much much younger than plenty if other "girls".

He clearly could afford a very expensive legal team. It's likely he knew that she was younger than 16, it's likely that that was why he picked her.

[OwlCurrency]

I'm not suggesting that he isn't a horrible little character who deserves to feel very ashamed. But it would also be wrong for me to suggest, in the light of the findings of the court, that he knew her true age.

[MaisyMooMoo]

Also, asking to see a passport is rude. It's socially sketchy to accuse someone of lying and ask them for documentation to prove otherwise.

I disagree. If someone asked my ID I would appreciate they were being responsible and for the right reasons.

My friend was still being asked for ID in bars when she was in her late 30s. She found it irritating at times but appreciated they were just doing there job and by doing so were protecting others.

[EnthusiasmDisturbed]

her description is not that of a girl who looks much older than she is

his desire was for a young looking teenager

I doubt he thought she looked 17 but what does it matter when he wants to have sex

[PosieReturningParker]

I'm saying what I believe is likely, not what the court believed. Plus courts do have a habit of blaming young women for their treatment. We only have to look at Rotherham and grooming cases in the news.

[DrSeussRevived]

It's a bit more than "rude" and "socially sketchy" to put your dick in a 13 year old though.

If this girl had a fake driving license that he'd asked to see, I'm sure that would have come up in the reports. Faking documents being more in the "criminal gang" than "young teenager" area.

I accept that the jury considered it wasn't proved beyond reasonable doubt ie they weren't around 95% sure that he knew her age. That doesn't mean the rest of us can't have the opinion that (a) he should have behaved more responsibly and (b) that he probably didn't care that much about examining any suspicions he did have.

[OwlCurrency]

I agree that he is obviously stupid. But it is against common social constructs to accuse someone of lying.

[dustarr73]

He might be a slimeball but he did go to an adult website.Whether he could afford a top team is here and there.She was the one on the website claiming she was older.Plus im sure she wasnt trafficked otherwise he would have harder charges.

[scarlets]

He's a sleazebag and his wife is a mug.

[DrSeussRevived]

Doug Richard is far from stupid.

And so what if it's "against social constructs"? Bar staff and corner shops check age all the time to ensure they don't break the law: a tad more important, don'tcha think?

[EnthusiasmDisturbed]

could he have not said well you look very young I think you might be younger than what you said

goodbye

or did he think I like that look of that she looks young that's what I like so that is what I will have

[Andrewofgg]

DrSeussRevived I know of no campaign to change the law back and TBH I doubt if it would pass muster under the HRA if it was changed. It does not lead to many acquittals - more often to decisions not to prosecute.

The old law was preposterous. There was no offence if the girl had pretended to be sixteen for the purpose of going through a ceremony of marriage with the man!

What is slightly more serious is this: the old law called it unlawful sexual intercourse and that meant that if they were married it was lawful. Of course you cannot legally marry under 16 in the UK and if you are domiciled in any of the UK jurisdictions you cannot legally marry anywhere else.

But in some countries (some of the American States, France, Denmark) the age is lower. It is absurd that if you are domiciled there and married there intercourse with your spouse here is a crime. This was a deliberate change and the Minister in the House of Lords, Lady Scotland, made a rather xenophobic speech saying: We don't want such people having intercourse here, thank you. It was a bit reminiscent of No Sex, Please, We're British.

It seems to me that if Philippe and Jeanne who live in France and have just got married there, quite legally, want to spend their honeymoon in England, she being 15 and he 18, it should not be a crime in him to have intercourse with his wife. What do others think?

[OwlCurrency]

His wife must have known already. It would be totally unforgivable to me. Perhaps she has decided to look the other way.

Dreadful, for her. And his children.