The Metropolitan Police says it’s investigating a report of sexual assault in Soho in 2003 after allegations were levied against Russell Brand, as the comedian suspended the remaining dates of his latest tour.
On Saturday, a newspaper outlet and Channel 4’s Dispatches reported allegations of abusive and predatory behaviour including rape, sexual assault and emotional abuse said to have been committed by the presenter between 2006 and 2013.
Russell Brand completely repudiates the allegations and insists all his relationships had been consensual, taking to the stage on Saturday for his Bipolarisation tour as expected.
But on Monday promoters for the tour confirmed that the remaining dates in Windsor, Plymouth and Wolverhampton had been shelved.
They said in a statement that they were postponing those few remaining addiction charity fundraiser shows. They didn’t like doing it, but they knew people would understand.
The alleged sexual assault evidently took place in Soho three years before the four sexual assaults that Russell Brand has been accused of between 2006 and 2013.
A spokesperson for the Met said that on Sunday, 17 September, the Met received a report of a sexual assault which was alleged to have taken place in Soho in central London in 2003.
The spokesperson said that officers are in contact with the woman and will be providing her with support, and said that they first spoke with the Sunday Times on Saturday, 16 September and had since made further approaches to The Sunday Times and Channel 4 to ensure that anyone who believes they’ve been the victim of a sexual offence is aware of how to report this to the police.
They said they will continue to encourage anyone who believes they may have been a victim of a sexual offence, no matter how long ago it was, to contact them.
Allegations of historic sexual abuse demand detailed and professional handling. They frequently come out of the blue leaving the accused and their families feeling dumbfounded and devastated.
There’s no time limit on when sexual offences can be prosecuted in the United Kingdom, and of course, historic abuse is not treated any less seriously by the police or the courts.
There are far too many people who have been accused of a crime, even though there’s been no DNA evidence. They spend years in prison and then it’s discovered that they were always innocent, and they never actually caught the real perpetrator who’s probably out there, roaming the streets.
Anybody can accuse somebody else of rape or sexual assault, but it doesn’t always mean they did the crime. It might seem like a clear-cut case of sexual assault. However, a case should not be determined by what one believes, but rather by what the investigation reveals and what can be established 100 per cent.
DNA analysis has had an unprecedented impact on the criminal justice system for an extremely long time. It has driven investigations along and made prosecuting those alleged to have perpetrated the offence easier.
Science can now provide focus or direction to an investigation. Help develop a case theory, and clear suspects or those wrongfully convicted with more certainty. As a result, the criminal justice community has become highly reliant on DNA analysis, and it also permits those who have died because of a sexual act to talk for themselves through that DNA.
If I was on a jury for a sexual assault, I would want to see DNA analysis, and many juries and lawyers alike expect to see DNA evidence presented during a trial, but with historical sexual assault there is no DNA, so putting it bluntly we have to look at the evidence that the victims have given in court and try to determine if the suspected perpetrator is guilty or not. It’s a bit like being at the casino, rolling the dice and hoping that your dice rolls right.
But what happens in a “he said, she said” case? Or what about a case where there is no DNA available because it’s historical? What do we do, roll the dice and hope that we made the right decision in putting a person in prison and then finding out years later they were completely innocent?
On the 9th June 2010, during PMs Questions, Prime Minister David Cameron admitted that between 8-10 per cent of all rape allegations were false.
These were ones proved to be false, but how many more fall through the net putting innocent men in prison for offences they did not commit?
Sadly, over the past 25 years, justice in this area of criminal activity has been manipulated to convict more efficiently than in any other area of criminality, and the rights of the defendant have diminished and it’s ‘justice at any price’, and it has ensured that more innocents have been locked up more than ever before.
The problem with our legal system starts with the first steps you take in the courtroom. You’re escorted into a glass enclosure, then locked in with a security guard for company, and this is how the jury first sees you, looking guilty.
And that’s a wrap, folks!
THE MONTHLY MOSQUITO 