Ray Teret, Double Standards & FOI's - an Update

Dear Mr Bougeard

Freedom of Information Act 2000 Request

I refer to your Freedom of Information (FOI) request which we received on 22 December 2014.

The FOI Act gives you the right to know whether we hold the information you want and to have it communicated to you, subject to any exemptions which may apply. It is a public disclosure regime, not a private regime. This means that any information disclosed under the FOI Act by definition becomes available to the wider public. 

In your request you referred to the sentencing remarks relating to Ray Teret’s conviction, who was recently sentenced to 25 years for child abuse charges.  You asked the following questions below and I have supplied our answer in bold font next to each question:

 

Please could you let me know: 

 

1)   Was the charge of "intercourse with a girl between 13 and 16" considered to begin with? (Yes or No) Yes

2)   Due to the length of time between the crime and disclosure, was the charge amended to "indecent assault" to guarantee a conviction? (Yes or No) No

3)   If question 1) was "No", why was it No? N/A

4) Ray Teret was cleared of various other sexual offences in relation to six other complainants - a)  did any of these relate to the crime "intercourse with girl between 13 and 15", No 

and b) was he cleared because of the 12 month timescale (Yes or No to 'a' and 'b' ) No

I trust this information assists.

 

Needless to say, one further FOI has been submitted in relation to questions and answers one and two.

 

More to follow when I receive an update.

 

In the meantime, please keep signing & sharing my petition

Double Standards, Ray Teret, Indecent Assault and Bending the Rules

 

 

 

On December 11 2014, Ray Teret was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment for his catalogue of crimes against girls. A sentence well justified.

 

The sentencing remarks by Mr Justice Baker are interesting reading, when comparing them against the petition I started last year.

 

Reading through them, it is apparent that double standards have been applied in this case, when compared to other cases which have involved the same crime.

 

According to Justice Baker here , five out of the eleven victims, aged between thirteen and fifteen "consented" to their abuse (yes I know, AoC is sixteen and to imply consent does not make sense).

 

The paragraphs that interest me in Justice Baker's comments are below, and I have highlighted the "consensual" crimes:

 

"The jury convicted you of having sexually abused 11 different girls during this period
of time, 6 of whom you raped and 5 of whom were, as I have said, so awed by your
celebrity status that they consented to having sexual intercourse with you. Some of
those you raped were forcibly penetrated by you, causing them acute pain and distress,
whilst you ejaculated inside them. However it is clear that all of these girls were used
by you for your own sexual gratification, which in some cases was enhanced by you
encouraging them to masturbate you both manually and orally. In my judgement it is
no mere coincidence that each of these girls was between 13 – 15 years of age when
you abused them in this manner, as I am sure that, despite your protestations to the
contrary, you have a sexual interest in girls of that age."

 

"At the time of the commission of the offences of indecent assault the maximum
sentence for such offences was 2 years’ custody. This court remains bound by that
restriction. Thus on counts 1, 14, 25 31 and 35 there will be sentences of 18 months’
imprisonment, and on counts 6, 8, 18, 22, 23 and 24 there will be sentences of 12
months’ imprisonment. However on each of the convictions for rape, namely counts
5, 7, 9, 10, 16, 19, and 27 there will be sentences of 25 years’ imprisonment. All of
those sentences will run concurrently with each other making a total custodial sentence
of 25 years."

 

I say "Interesting" deliberately, because as we know, as detailed in my petition here, and previous posts, the crime of "Intercourse with a girl aged between 13 and 16" (note "intercourse", not "rape -, thus implying ostensible consent), carried with it a disclosure timescale of 12 months. Both the MoJ and CPS have over the last few months, stuck to their guns and stated repeatedly to me that in the UK, crimes cannot be "retroactively" amended and therefore any victim of this crime, who has disclosed after the 12 months have passed (ie anyone since 2005, as this timescale was removed in 2004) it is a matter of "tough luck".

 

Furthermore, the crime cannot be changed to "indecent assault", as detailed here ("A prosecution for an offence committed under section 6 (or an attempt to commit that offence) must be commenced within 12 months of the alleged offence. The House of Lords has ruled that a charge of indecent assault cannot be used to bypass the time limit. See R v J [2004] UKHL 42").

 

So, the question is, how have potentially hundreds of victims been so catastrophically failed by the "injustice system", but the Law can seemingly be bent for a high profile case such as this?

 

Was Justice Baker unaware of the time limit?

 

Did Justice Baker deliberately change the crime to "Indecent Assault" from the start, thus eliminating the 12 months?

 

Or, more likely (in my opinion), did the rules get "bent" as this, being Saville related, there had to be a desirable outcome, whatever the path of getting it?

 

Whatever the reason is, this is a totally unacceptable flouting of the Law to fit the crime, and this makes it ten times worse for all the victims of the same crime, who have been so badly let down.