14 February (Part 1) - James Hunt : The judge sums up
The simplest summary is that James is of “good character” and his accusers
provided evidence that was “wholly inconsistent”. They remained “friendly” with
James long after (a year) the dates of the alleged offences. This “undermines”
their evidence. “The delay is material.”
“Their reluctance to involve the police is odd.“ “Their witness is a person
whose credibility I find to be in doubt.” One of the accusers changed her story,
she was initially unconcerned and was persuaded to change her stance.
James’ account was “compelling and robust over two hours of questioning”.
The following is District Judge Lucy Corrin’s summary.…
I am asked to decide on three charges, these related to 27 October 2023,
the first said to be a smack or slap to [name redacted] buttocks, on the same day
said to be a pinch to [name redacted] buttocks. 9 December, said a grabbing of
buttocks and sliding a hand into the groin. Said to be sexual assault
committed by James Hunt. I remind myself of the burden and standard, I must be
satisfied so that I am sure. James Hunt has no previous convictions or cautions. His
good character is not a defence, [but] counts in his favour in two ways – it
supports his credibility, which is something I should consider, and may mean
he is less likely to have committed the offences. I have decided what weight to give.
I note that these are serious allegations by a person said to be in position
of trust and responsibility, I have considered them carefully. I make the
following findings. [Name redacted] and [name redacted] evidence – I found
their evidence wholly inconsistent with the phone evidence, I place weight
on the phone evidence as it was accepted by them. I find it provided
reliable contemporaneous information about the status of the relationship.
It suggested relations were unchanged, remained cordial, warm even friendly.
This evidence undermined the credibility of their accounts in relation to 27
October. I can consider why this didn’t come to light sooner, there may be
good reasons to delay reporting sexual offences. The Court is mindful of
myths and stereotypes. This delay is material and should be considered.
First report was made in December 2024, 14 months after the alleged
incident, 12 months after the alleged incident with [name redacted]. The
Crown‘s case that the complainants awaited the outcome of the SA [Scout’s Association]
investigation, defence say that the delay is of concern, reason is that
complaint made to the SA, arose from a work dispute.
The police were contacted when the SA found no evidence of wrongdoing.
Prosecution witnesses testified under cross-examination, their reluctance to
involve police was odd. In light of the impact said to have been caused, I
note the timing of their complaints. After the SA concluded their
investigation, it is accepted that it was not a matter decided in their
favour. The delay is also inextricably linked to [name] involvement with the
two complainants, these were not spontaneous and independent reports. [Name]
report triggered by her [name] intervention, he is a person whose
credibility I find to be in doubt. The delay undermines the credibility of
the prosecution witness accounts. There are concerns around contamination of
evidence, [name] changed her account from the first witness statement to the
account given in oral evidence. That is material to this case and went to
the core. In her initial statement, she said that after chat with [name]
about what happened to [name], she was more concerned and did not think it
was an accident. That leaves open the possibility that up to that point she
was unconcerned. [Name] ruled out needing any help from JH. There is
evidence to the contrary including from husband.
I note in passing that there are no independent WS in this case. JH has the
benefit of good character, his interview account is lengthy, detailed, I
find it to be compelling. He was consistent in his oral evidence, he was
robustly tested, he gave evidence for almost 2 hours. There were no material
inconsistencies identified. [Defence witness] and [defence witness] were
consistent on the matters at the heart of these allegations. The nature of
their inconsistencies, I find to be in relation to minor matters which
perspective and memory would account for. I don’t deal with every piece of evidence.