Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Should someone who has been charged with rape be freed on bail?

97 replies

spookyskeleton · 15/10/2010 20:52

Just been reading this story about a man who had been charged with several counts of rape against his partner, subsequently released on bail and then he murdered her Sad.

I do think that there seems to be a difference between this kind of rape and the 'stranger' rape as I can't imagine someone who raped a stranger in a park, for example, being released on bail...whilst the man in the news story was probably not a danger to the general public, but he was clearly a danger to his ex-partner.

What do you think?

OP posts:
Original poster
spookyskeleton · 15/10/2010 21:16

Anyone? I thought there would be some opinions on here tbh!

OP posts:
Chil1234 · 16/10/2010 06:51

Clearly, in this case, the accused man should not have been released on bail given what subsequently happened. It could be that the responsible nature of his profession (paramedic) influenced the decision to bail him. And if he had no previous convictions or recorded history of violent behaviour he may have been seen as 'low risk'. But, as I said initially, it was the wrong decision on this occasion.

spidookly · 16/10/2010 07:18

One might have hoped that his repeated threats against this woman's life would have carried more weight than his "responsible job".

huddspur · 16/10/2010 12:15

I think it depends and needs to be looked at on a case by case basis.

StewieGriffinsMom · 16/10/2010 12:58

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

edam · 16/10/2010 13:01

Shocking case. I do hope the judge who released him regrets his stupid actions rather than trying to justify his decision. There was a chilling line in the news coverage that the nurse's own colleagues didn't recognise her, she was so badly injured, poor woman. And her baby has to grow up without a Mummy...

Seems to be a pattern of the justice treating violence against women without the seriousness it deserves. Raoul Moat is just one example of many.

Original poster
spookyskeleton · 16/10/2010 13:13

Surely this sends out such a bad message to women who are suffering DV - this woman eventually plucks up the courage to report him and then ends up fearing for her life for 9 months before the worst happens Sad Bail conditions mean nothing if someone is determined to commit murder!

This is just going to put more women off coming forward as the justice system just
does not protect them.

I feel so Sad for the baby plus he has 2 other young children by his ex-wife who now have to live with this aswell.

OP posts:
Chil1234 · 16/10/2010 13:25

It is a bad message and we need to learn how the situation arose. Whoever was representing the victim in this case did a very poor job of putting her side of the story, providing evidence of threatening behaviour and making it clear how frightened she was. I'd like to have seen how the case was made for bail... did people stand up and testify to his good character? His wife/colleagues/friends? How did he convince anyone that he was trustworthy and not a threat given the bits and pieces we can read in the newspapers? That would be worth knowing.

Original poster
spookyskeleton · 16/10/2010 13:56

Chil I guess you are right in that either his solicitor did an excellent case or the CPS did a poor case. The evidence that has been reported in the press shows that there was a genuine fear that he would do something like that.

I do know that he was initially refused bail but it was granted on appeal a few days later

I can't believe that his job was a reason why bail was granted although he must have been very good at living a double life of helping/saving lives whilst putting his partner through hell at home and eventually taking her life.

OP posts:
Chil1234 · 17/10/2010 08:33

I don't think his job was the reason, as such. More a contributing factor in assessing the risk. Like you, most people tend to associate paramedics in that kind of 'Josh in Casualty' way i.e kind, helpful, trustworthy, and we're shocked if they prove otherwise. Harold Shipman got away with it for years because he fitted the part of 'kindly GP'.

sethstarkaddersmummyreturns · 17/10/2010 19:40

there was a thread in Feminism about this here

mamatomany · 17/10/2010 19:58

Difficult because a false allegation was made against somebody locally to us, he wasn't bailed, spent 6 months in prison and when it came to light that he was in fact not guilty they said sorry like, off you go.
In the meantime he had lost his job, his rented house, his wife lost her job and their children have had to move schools twice.
Sorry doesn't quit cut it and yet what can they do to compensate for all that.

sethstarkaddersmummyreturns · 17/10/2010 20:19

yeah but he's not dead is he Mamatomany?

what has that got to do with it? A case where a man had a false allegation has nothing whatsoever to do with a case where a man had a history of domestic violence and then harassed his exgf when supposed to be on bail but she still wasn't protected from it.
Or are you saying we should ignore all risks caused by violent men because the danger of someone suffering due to a false allegation is worse than the danger of someone being murdered? Confused

sorry doesn't quite cut it for her family either.... what can they do to compensate for that?

if you are falsely accused you can rebuild your life. if you're dead you can't.

mamatomany · 17/10/2010 20:53

The point is innocent until proven guilty and that means not being forced to serve a sentence until somebody decides based on the actual evidence that you are in fact guilty.
And no it's not a case of just rebuild your life, you can never get back that time.

sethstarkaddersmummyreturns · 17/10/2010 20:55

right, so you would never lock anyone up until they had been tried then? Confused

mamatomany · 17/10/2010 21:07

You have no choice but to presume most people are innocent until proven guilty and therefore should not be jail, the other way just doesn't work.
More should have been done to protect this particular lady but I suspect he would have found a way of getting to her once he got out of prison anyway, he seems pretty unhinged.

sethstarkaddersmummyreturns · 17/10/2010 21:26

most people do get bailed AFAIK.
this guy was clearly dangerous.
suppose someone raped you or your dd, you'd like him to be running around free before the trial would you? even if he was threatening you and you'd been to the police numerous times about him hurting you? after all, innocent until proved guilty and all that....

MrJelly · 17/10/2010 21:31

I posted this on the other thread about this case but someone directed me here...

I am a regular here but have namechanged for this for obvious reasons.

I actually had a few dealings with this man during the time between his bail and the murder - god, it sends shivers down my spine when I think about it

Anyway, I think, from subsequent discussions with other people involved, it was obvious to most people that he was a danger...certainly when I first heard that a nurse had been murdered outside that hospital (before I knew any details at all), my instinct straight away was that he had murdered the woman who had made all the allegations of rape so I must have thought he was capable of it.

So, if I thought that, why the hell couldn't a judge see it??

I am so furious about the whole thing....what kind of message has this sent out to other women in violent relationships?

Another point really is that it took him 6 months from being bailed to actually killing her...which seems quite calculated to me tbh.

HerBeatitude · 17/10/2010 21:36

It doesn't take long for the old "false allegation" chestnut to come up, does it?

What about people who are accused of murder? Some of them aren't guilty either, should all alleged murderers be bailed in case they're not guilty?

It's very obvious why this man was bailed - because violence against women isn't taken seriously. If it were, the fact that 2 women a week are murdered by their partners or ex-partners, would be treated as a national crisis and there would be immediate steps to find out how this can be stopped.

mamatomany · 17/10/2010 21:37

Of course i wouldn't like it but that is how the system works.
As the other poster said 6 months he planned this attack, i doubt anything, short of the witness protection program would have stopped him.

sethstarkaddersmummyreturns · 17/10/2010 21:43

er, prison.....

for a long long time.

You seem to be arguing that because he would have killed her in the end (you reckon) it was ok for him to kill her now.

even if they made a mistake and let him out after a long sentence and he still went and did it, I should think an extra 20 years of life might have been quite nice for her.
After all, she'd have got to see her kids grow up.

and you seem to think 6 months is a big deal when it comes to a man being in prison for 6 months when falsely accused.

BertieBotts · 17/10/2010 21:43

Except for, maybe, being in jail where he can't reach her? Confused

mamatomany · 17/10/2010 21:47

I'm not saying it's ok for anyone to be killed at all, where did you read that ?
But it's not ok to go around locking people up on the off chance of what they might do on the basis of what they've been accused of.

BertieBotts · 17/10/2010 21:49

Situations like this just make me so angry, WHY, when abuse patterns have been studied and most abusers follow absolutely textbook patterns, again and again, in relationship after relationship, wrecking lives, why when they are convicted for something like rape or assault which is connected with this are they not given specific treatment? Why don't more police/judges/social workers/etc etc know about these patterns of behaviour? Why aren't juries briefed in it? Especially when it's well known that abusers often appear charming, cool and collected to outsiders. Or that 'joking' threats should be taken seriously.

It's a fucking joke and myself and several million other women didn't go through it to let it carry on happening for all time. We have the information now, what can we do with it to change things?

HerBeatitude · 17/10/2010 21:59

So mama, do you think that no-one should be locked up before they are found guilty then, as everyone has to be considered innocent until proven guilty?