CPS News Brief

Fred Talbot convicted of indecent assault

Today at Manchester Minshull St Crown Court, Fred Talbot has been found guilty oftwo indecent assaults against two boys under the age of 16. The offences occurred in the 1970s when he was a qualified teacher at a boys’ grammar school in Greater Manchester. He was acquitted on a further eight counts of indecent assault.

He will be sentenced on 13^th March at Manchester Minshull St Crown Court.

Nazir Afzal, Chief Crown Prosecutor, CPS North West Area said:

“As a teacher, Fred Talbot was in a position of trust and responsibility.  Parents and pupils saw him as a popular, likeable teacher who was willing to give up his time to take children away on school trips.  In fact he used those situations as opportunities to sexually assault two teenage boys who should have been safe in his care.  The offences he committed were a gross betrayal of the trust placed in him.

“The victims, and other witnesses in the case, have shown real courage and resolve in reporting what happened to the police and giving evidence during this trial. Because of their courage Fred Talbot has today been brought to justice for these crimes. 

”I hope that these verdicts will help them in some way and I hope they will give other victims of sexual abuse the confidence to come forward knowing that they will be taken seriously and treated with sensitivity.”

Three men jailed for the rape of a woman in 20-hour ordeal

• Case demonstrates need for context when considering issue of consent

Three men have today [Friday, 13 February] been jailed for a combined total of 18 years for the rape and sexual assault of a 23-year-old woman.

In a protracted attack in a Lincoln flat, Michael Armitage, 42, Rafal Segiet, 40, and Pawal Chudzicki, 47, subjected their victim to an ordeal which lasted 20 hours. Today they were each sentenced to six years’ imprisonment at Lincoln Crown Court.

The issue central to the prosecution case was that the victim lacked the capacity to consent to the sexual activity. The victim, who had been drinking, was taken by the men in a taxi to the flat where the attacks took place on the night of 27 October 2012. She had been out with friends but had become separated from them.

The trial, which began on 5 January 2015 at Lincoln Crown Court, was suspended for a number of days after the trial judge ruled that there was insufficient evidence to put before a jury on the basis that a lack of memory does not amount to a lack of capacity to consent.

The prosecution sought a ruling from the Court of Appeal on the evidential sufficiency of the case, arguing that the full context needed to be taken into consideration when considering the issue of consent, including mobile phone footage taken by one of the defendants and blood tests demonstrating a high level alcohol in the victim’s blood. The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the prosecution and the trial continued.

Lawrence English, CPS East Midlands Senior District Crown Prosecutor, said: “This was rape as it was clear the woman was in no state to consent to sex. While it is, of course, true that lack of memory, on its own, does not prove lack of consent, the context in this case showed that this victim was taken advantage of because she was incapacitated, and that she could not have consented to sexual activity.

“It is against the law to engage in sexual activity with someone who is clearly unable, through drink, to give their consent. We are pleased that the Court of Appeal ruled in the way it did and the case proceeded to the jury for a verdict.

“The victim in this case has shown tremendous courage in this case. She suffered an horrific ordeal because of the actions of these three men and we are satisfied to see justice has been served.”

Further Information: On 28 January 2015, the Director of Public Prosecution, Alison Saunders, launched toolkits for police and prosecutors on the issue of consent. For the first time, the toolkits spell out situations where a potential victim may have been unable to consent due to incapacity through drink or drugs, for example.

No further action to be taken against PCC Ron Hogg

CPS decision in relation to IPCC referral in respect of Ron Hogg in connection with two bonus payments made to him while he was deputy Chief Constable of Cleveland Police and in relation to a car that was passed to him when he retired.

Until 2008 Ron Hogg was employed as Deputy Chief Constable of Cleveland Police and on contractual terms that allowed for the payment of bonuses.  There is no evidence that he requested bonuses.  His performance was assessed by the Chief Constable as being very good.  The Chief Constable recommended the bonuses to Mr Hogg and a number of other individuals on the grounds of excellent performance.  These were approved by the Police Authority at the time and recipients were informed of their awards at routine meetings. 

The evidence in this case indicates that when Mr Hogg retired the Cleveland Police Authority Leadership Panel agreed that he could keep his company car as part of his leaving arrangements.  The Panel had taken advice from a barrister who stated that a decision to allow Mr Hogg to keep his vehicle was “not only fair but in accordance with the spirit of the guidance”.

In 2012 Mr Hogg was elected as the Police and Crime Commissioner for Durham. 

In September 2013 the Durham Police and Crime Panel referred these matters to the IPCC; who have conducted an investigation.

On 30 January 2015 the CPS was asked by the IPCC to consider the criminal offence of misconduct in public office. This offence requires proof that a public officer, acting as such and without reasonable excuse or justification, wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder.  

The matter has been considered by a Specialist Prosecutor within the CPS Special Crime Division who for the sake of completeness also considered the Fraud Act.

Having considered the evidence in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors we have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to show that any crime has been committed and we have advised that no further action be taken. 

Any decision by the CPS does not imply any finding concerning guilt or criminal conduct; the CPS makes decisions only according to the test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors and it is applied in all decisions on whether or not to prosecute.

Notes to Editors 

The CPS's function is not to decide whether a person is guilty of a criminal offence, but to make fair, independent and objective assessments about whether it is appropriate to present charges for the criminal court to consider. The CPS assessment of any case is not in any sense a finding of, or implication of, any guilt or criminal conduct. It is not a finding of fact, which can only be made by a court, but rather an assessment of what it might be possible to prove to a court, in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, a copy of which is provided via the link below:

www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors/index.html 

This assessment is based on the evidence available arising out of the police investigation and not on the evidence that is likely to be gathered by the defence, and likely to be used to test the prosecution evidence. The CPS charging decision is therefore necessarily an assessment on the basis of the evidence that is available to the CPS at the time the decision is made.

CPS prosecutors must also keep every case under review, so that they take account of any change in circumstances that occurs as the case develops, including what becomes known of the defence case. If appropriate, the CPS may change the charges or stop a case.