To think this is an insane verdict

[DancingNotDrowning]

pilot who takes lost girl back to his hotel not guilty of kidnap and assault.

unbelievable verdict, poor girl.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly2xv1yx83o.amp

It's bonkers. Wtf was he thinking??? The poor girl.

Presumably the reason he's been acquitted is that the prosecution was unable to prove, beyond reasonable doubt that that happened.

@AGoingConcern "Asking a child to follow you to a hotel room and being there is not actually a crime"

but its kidnapping surely. So it is a crime. If I see a lost child and take them to my home, surely I'm immediately guilty of kidnap?

that one charge should stand easily.

A not guilty verdict, like a guilty verdict, must be unanimous unless the judge allows a majority verdict, in which case at least 10 of the jurors must agree the verdict (again, regardless of whether the verdict is guilty or not guilty). There is no indication in the reports of this case that it was a majority verdict, so the jury must have unanimously agreed that the evidence presented in court was insufficient to convince them beyond reasonable doubt that he had committed the offences.

This is all kind of pointless - it was the jury who doubted the girl's evidence. They presumably heard her examined and cross-examined in court to test her evidence. The same would have happened to all the witnesses.

None of us saw or heard any of that, but the jury did, and they decided that prosecution evidence, including the testimony from the girl, was not enough to prove the offence.

@AGoingConcern witness testimony is not circumstantial evidence.

@prh47bridge any thoughts on how he could be not guilty of kidnap? I'm so thrown by that.

@AGoingConcern But we don't just have a bare statement from the girl that she was assaulted. We also have the wider facts of the case that are highly indicative of abuse taking place - he took a 9 year old girl back to his flat for two hours, she had a sedative in her urine that cannot be otherwise accounted for and the water she drank there tasted bitter. These facts add a great deal of credibility to her statement. It's not just her word against his.

Why wouldn’t he just have asked a Harrods door person.

I hope there is a retrial.

reads like a joke.

According to Google, the legal definition of kindnap requires "four elements to the offence of kidnap namely taking of one person by another, by force/fraud, without consent and without lawful excuse".

I wouldn't think it was hard to argue that at least one of those wasn't present in this case.

It would be due to lack of criminal intent.

I knew what the thread title was referring to before I even clicked it. Appalling verdict. The dignity and rights of women and girls continue to be eroded daily in this country.

I’ve always wanted to do jury service but have never been invited.

My husband says I would never be picked anyway because I believe, “they’re all guilty and we should have the bastards.”

It seems very hard to see how he was found not guilty.

No, that is not the definition of kidnapping under UK law.

Kidnapping requires force or fraud and the absence of consent.

Simply inviting a lost child into your home is not kidnapping.
Inviting a lost child into your home and physically stopping them from leaving (force) is kidnapping.
Inviting a lost child into your home with the lie "your parents are waiting for you there" (a fraudulent statement) is kidnapping.
Inviting a lost child into your home and then telling people who come looking for her that you haven't seen her (a fraudulent statement) is kidnapping.
Inviting a lost child into your home with fake offers of help in order to harm them instead (as made clear through evidence that the person has in fact assaulted the child) is kidnapping.
When the jury determined there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict on the other charges (assault, drugging) it became difficult to convict on kidnapping.

Again, every instinct and experience I have screams that this man didn't mean well. But I can distinguish between that and the evidence required for a criminal conviction, and I understand the reason we have those legal standards instead of trial by public opinion.

Thanks

we're not really protecting children from kidnap with the law as it stands. That's awful. I really thought asking a child to go with you would automatically count.

There's zero excuse anywhere, never mind outside of Harrods when there are so many staff members he could have taken her to and then it would be their responsibility to call police and see if they could locate her parents while keeping her safe there.

To get a conviction for kidnapping, the prosecution needed to convince the jury beyond reasonable doubt that he was not trying to help the girl. If his intention in taking the girl to his apartment was, as he claims, to help her, that was not kidnapping. The jury clearly felt that the prosecution had not done enough to prove that he wasn't trying to help the girl.

It’s vile. I get that.

However, if any aspect of reasonable doubt is present then that’s it.

With no physical evidence there was little the jury could do.

Thanks @AGoingConcern , a really clear explanation, and your last point is really important - we can't just lock people up because we think they're dodgy or a threat.

I understand all the reasons for a having juries and I agree with them. I understand all the reasons why we want a high bar for conviction and that of course the jury will have seen more than is reported in the news.

but ask 100 people whether the taking of a child to his hotel/flat was reasonable behaviour (regardless of her testimony, regardless of the drugs in her system) and 100 people will say he was a sex offender.

and then we get results like this.

I’m a criminal barrister (although I practice in house so it’s a while since I did a jury trial) which perhaps makes this thread ill advised, but sometimes the world just seems so fucking insane and a man behaving in this way is fucking insane.

and it’s on top of the Barbie Kardashian aquital in Ireland this week and it just seems there is nothing nothing women and girls can do to get justice.

I probably need to go and rant to colleagues about this. I just feel so disheartened.

The statements about the drugging could easily be challenged, however, in the absence of forensic proof. There was no trace of Benedryl anywhere in his flat, on the glasses or anywhere else. Presumably they also checked his search engine results and that corroborated he had been looking up police stations in that time. The court also heard earlier in the trial that he had communicated with the girl using Google translate because her English was poor and that would've also corroborated his version that he was trying to help her. The defence pointed out – and the jury clearly agreed – that it made no sense he'd take her to the busiest part of Hyde Park, teeming with tourists, to assault her in public while the effects of the drug were wearing off. If he really did have nefarious intent, why not assault her in his flat while she was drugged and there were no witnesses around?

As @AGoingConcern said, the jury heard so much more than the papers have reported today.

If you're a criminal barrister then surely you know the jury will have been presented with evidence that showed he could not have been guilty of the crimes he was charged with?

What?? No. I am not a criminal barrister but even I know that that is not the burden of proof. Just because he wasn't convicted, it does not mean "he could not have been guilty", it means it could not have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.