More egg on the faces of the Operation Yewtree mob as DJ Dr Fox is declared innocent of all charges. What concerns me is, if the GMC have suspended him, will he be reinstated with immediate effect?
Dr Fox not guilty
Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Not at all surprised with this outcome. Someone else whose reputation has been ruined for no reason. It’s a joke.
He was found not guilty. Courts don’t declare people innocent. Slight distinction.
They don’t, but in England/Wales it’s a binary thing. You’re brought to court with a cloak of innocence on you, and – in theory – unless it’s removed by a guilty conviction, you should be entitled to leave with your innocence intact.
It doesn’t always work like that, I’ll grant you, and of course, it’s possible that Fox is an odious twerp, but a possible reading of what you’re saying there ‘courts don’t declare people innocent’ is that there’s no smoke without fire.
Courts, by their very nature, can’t declare anybody innocent – they hear the evidence *against* a person, allow the accused rebut the evidence and then consider if the evidence against is enough to say that the charge is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Yes, it’s a high burden of proof probably BECAUSE the thinking was that otherwise peoples lives could get mucked up with only a half arsed prosecution.
Which sometimes appears to still happen in cases like this.
And, confusingly, the District Judge seems to have found the alleged victims highly credible.
It looks to me (on reading one article) that his boorish behaviour wasn’t quite boorish enough to have broken the law.
@ivan I am not insinuating that there is no smoke without fire. I am merely pointing out
– somewhat pedantically, I grant you – that courts don’t declare people innocent.
That’s fair enough, Jim. I wasn’t putting words in your mouth, and possibly should have been clearer with that in my original post.
Things worth pointing out:
In the summary, the Judge explicitly said that this was a case that needed to be brought.
He also explicitly stated that that the alleged incidents took place.
The not guilty verdicts were not a statement that he had done nothing wrong, simply that critical legal thresholds could not be met without a reasonable doubt, and so a not guilty verdict was necessary.
He explicitly said that Fox lied.
Before pontificating, I’d suggest reading the entire judgment. It’s rather damning.
I was reading ‘How Music Got Free’ the other day and learnt about ‘nullification’. This is when judges/juries etc. know the defendant is guilty but return a ‘not guilty’ verdict because they feel the punishment will be too harsh. It happened in the cases of various file sharers.
I wonder if a similar thing has happened here.
Charge 1: “All in all, we cannot be satisfied that whatever happened amounted to a criminal offence, indecent assault, in 1991. We must make allowance for the difficulties facing a defendant in answering an allegation that goes back so many years. In all the circumstances we do find some doubt and we must give the benefit
of that doubt and find Neil Fox not guilty of this offence. ”
Charge 2: “None of this is surprising, and it does not shake our belief that B came to court to tell us the truth. However, there is a doubt about the nature and circumstances and context of the act, primarily because of the passage of time and lack of corroboration. ”
Charge 3: “This allegation has caused us anxious consideration. We are sure it happened. We are sure it was completely unacceptable. ”
Charge 10: “We emphasize that we believe X. We do not think she is lying or fantasizing. We are aware that for a variety of reasons events a long time ago can be misremembered. In these circumstances it is an invidious task for a court to say it is sure that what is alleged did indeed happen. We have a small doubt
and that must be exercised in favour of the defendant. ”
Summing up: “This is not to go back on our original assessment that we believed the witnesses and accept that they had attended to tell us the truth as they remember it. Nor should this verdict be taken as a criticism of the decision to bring this prosecution. It was a strong case and one that needed to be brought to the court for determination. ”
It’s hardly a) a vindication for Fox and/or b) a totally worthless case.
I don’t have an opinion either way on this – I don’t know the facts of the case and I respect the rule of law to deliver a just outcome based on the evidence presented to the court.
However, I would say that he looks like a proper cunt to me and that he should have been found guilty of that if nothing else. IMHO.
‘you are hereby by this accused by this court of looking like a bit of a cunt. How do you plead, guilty or not guilty?’
If he lied, he will be charged for perjury, surely?
The Coulson experience in Scotland would suggest not
That’s me told!
I know a former work colleague of the Doctor. She thought he was a dick but not a complete dick and absolutely would not be drawn into any speculation about the case.
I wonder what lovable DLT makes of it all? On the surface, the charges/accusations against in both his and Fox’s cases seem very similar. One is found guilty, the other not…the law is very peculiar sometimes.