Man who kidnapped and tortured women gets travel ban

[ArabellaScott]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy9dld3jgx8o

'A man who abused vulnerable women in an underground chamber at his Highland home has been given the first worldwide travel ban to be imposed by a Scottish court.
Kevin Booth, who is in his 60s, carried out "punishment beatings" using whips, canes and riding crops at his Lochdhu Lodge in Altnabreac, a small community in Caithness.
A court ruling said he had carried out "a systematic course of conduct of acts of human trafficking and exploitation" over many years.'

Can anyone tell me why this man is not in jail? Why is he free to live in his giant castle with the fucking dungeon in it but not allowed to go on holiday?

I came here to ask the exact same thing. Why is this person not in jail?!!! Even child abuse. Wtf! How is he getting away with all this please can someone with some legal expertise give an opinion before i lose my last remaining sliver of belief in the justice system?

https://news.stv.tv/highlands-islands/millionaire-faces-worldwide-travel-ban-after-torturing-women-at-scottish-lodge

Some more detail here, but I still don't understand why he's not been pursued for a criminal conviction.

"The court saw 13 videos of Booth’s conduct."

How is this not enough evidence to send him to prison?

Sounds like the police tried the criminal route back in 2019, but were scuppered in 2021. They were obviously not happy and took this to civil court. Very unusual, according to tv news tonight.

Glad the police pushed for this. Extremely annoyed that this absolute creep hasn’t been brought to proper justice. It’s an absolute disgrace, and the police must have felt the same way to have taken this civil action.

I came here to post about this and ask why this abusive filth isn't in the slammer.

There are literal fucking videos of him abusing women. How is the procurator fiscal not seeing this as a viable criminal case? Is the PF on the take or something?

He won't comply with the parts of the order that require him to notify the police about female staff etc because the police have no way to monitor him. Let's hope that they make those unannounced welfare videos often. Of course, this doesn't stop him from hurting women outwith his properties.

Cases like this make it really really hard for me to stand by the need for due process and against vigilanteism. The failure to prosecute has made a mockery of due process.

Police tried to bring a case in 2021 but it fell apart. The Chief Constable was concerned enough to bring a very rare civil case against Booth which imposed all the restrictions described and will make his life very difficult indeed.So well done the Chief Constable.

He will have friends in high places and probably has lots of information about them.

But why did the case fall apart? How isn't 100s of videos of him assaulting women enough for criminal proceedings?

I feel the Police or court or someone should explain what's happened.

A little info from the Panama Papers:

offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/14048797

The travel ban will make his current mode of operation "very difficult indeed" but is unlikely to make his life very difficult and it seems to me that he'll just work out a new way to find and abuse women and children...

I have seen this sort of thing before. There was a bloke who had raped a number of women but the police were never able to get a conviction for it. So they put in a civil case basically saying that if he wanted to have sex then he and the woman had to register it with the police in advance. It meant that the next time he raped someone (and the police were certain that there would be a next time) they would be able to prosecute him for breaking the order.

Not a perfect solution but the best that could be done in a world where juries are not keen to convict for rape.

https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/8076730.kevin-lives-the-highlands-life/

Google has been wiped but here's a 30 year old article describing how his 'racing tips' company operated.

There’s a different standard in criminal and civil proceedings. In criminal it’s beyond reasonable doubt because you are potentially depriving someone over their liberty you have to be sure. In civil the bar is much lower it’s based on the balance of probabilities . So if you think it’s more likely that they did it.

Think of the OJ trial gets off in criminal court but taken to cleaners in civil.

100s of videos sounds pretty definitive.

Yes, the PF decides if they go ahead with court or not, but they still need a reasonable expectation of a conviction otherwise they won’t proceed. If they don’t have the evidence then they don’t have the evidence so they won’t try. Part of that evidence is victims giving evidence. If they refuse then the fiscal won’t take it to court. It’s not up to the victims to decide but it is often necessarily to have the victims involvement in order to get a conviction.
Even with their involvement, a lot of it would be he said/she said. If they don’t have a good chance at conviction then they won’t go to court. A civil case is much easier.

It does seem insane doesn't it
I honestly cried when this came on the radio. I could just imagine those poor women brought to a remote unfamiliar place where they can't seek any help and then repeatedly beaten and abused. It's absolutely shocking that somehow he can get away with that for years

On the radio it said he had got them to sign contracts saying they agreed to be beaten. Is the reason for no criminal case that he is saying they consented ie rough sex defence being trotted out again?

I am glad the police have at least done something to stop him and I guess there is also the consequence that his name is plastered all over the National media as an abuser now which should cause him some shame and discomfort and warn women not to go near him.

Fundamentally though he should be in prison and it does make me sad and fearful to know that we are not protected by the law from abusers at all.

And whilst I was reading that article on the BBC I found another piece of news today that Andrew Tate has been freed in Romania and flown back to the U.K. presumably without facing any convictions or consequences for his appalling treatment of women in a similar vein

I'm trying to play devil's advocate on this, to work out the logic.

This man can afford a good lawyer. And as such will come up with a good defence. These are also exceptionally vulnerable women involved. And he's an exceptionally manipulative man.

So put him on trial and even with videos he's going to pledge not guilty. And probably claim that these women consented and were into weird shit or were exploiting him for some reason (money, visa, drugs). And he'd put them on the stand for it. And have they endure an appalling cross examination.

Which may not be in the best interests of those women and may mean he gets off completely through a loophole or just gets a conviction which is small and he's out again pretty soon to repeat the cycle. Because the sentences available for his crimes are wholly inadequate. (We've seen too many cases where child porn convictions are not custodial or rapists getting remarkably short times behind bars).

So they've made a judgement call in refusing him to get a kick out of that, and to have access to his victims at trial (remember men who use coercive control, like to use authority and the system to continue to harass and control their victims - the process is punishment).

Going down the civil route is interesting because if he violates that, they then can bring other charges without involvement of victims in the same way. And it puts a ring around certain behaviours and makes it much more difficult for him to argue some ridiculous loophole. Or for him to be a flight risk so he can go abroad beyond the jurisdiction of the court and do similar abroad.

I don't know. They've clearly made a tactical decision on this for a reason. It's easy to go down the conspiracy route of what does he know and who does he know. That could well be true - but I also think before getting to that there's possibly other considerations too.

Central in my mind is it justice for the victims to be dragged through a distressing and possibly public trial and being cross examined by this piece of shit only for him to be out again in a couple of years free to do it all over again?

It feels like an admission that the sanctions available through the criminal courts are wholly inadequate for a repeat offender like this and that actually the law needs looking at by politicians to resolve that as it's beyond the scope of the police and court.

I only read the headlines.
Thanks to the posters who explained it was a civil case, I don't understand how the fiscal couldn't press charges. Surely they have enough evidence to get a criminal conviction?

Or was someone higher pulling the strings?
It's Scotland nothing would surprise me.

They have dual UK/US citizenship.

They aren't coming back to the UK ...

Sorry yes it's the US they are going back to
To be welcomed with open arms by far right Trump supporters.

I.wonder if the signing of contracts has something to do with the lack of criminal charges.

I found an account from the woman he hired as an au pair and abused, raped. Grim read, and she recounted how he made her sign a contract.

As I say, a loop hole to suggest she has somehow consented - then the argument becomes about whether he reasonably believed she had removed consent or she had consented and changed her mind after the fact.

An expensive lawyer definitely could muddy the waters enough to get it to a point of not meeting the reasonable doubt threshold and this undermining the chance of being able to secure a conviction.

Despite the evidence to the contrary.

Again the police understanding the dynamics here may feel that it's not in the interests of the victims to go through that process.

Sadly convictions of this nature still require 'perfect victims' far too often.

Yes. Perhaps everyone being made aware this man is a dangerous predator will also help to protect the public.

Flown to the US, (both brothers) they are friends of Musk, Trump Junior and possibly the orange man himself.