JOHN’S STORY(name changed to protect further hurt)

This is the story of a normal 16year old boy whose teenage comments and antics led to him being put on the sex offenders register for a period of 5 years for making a “lewd” comment to a teenage girl. The comment could have been made by many 16yr olds – male or female. Was justice served. Judge yourself.

In March 2003 John’s father received a phone call from the police asking him to tell his 16 yr old son to go to the police station. His father’s natural reaction was “What’s he done”. John was adamant he had done nothing wrong.

John went to the station and was astonished to find that a 14 yr old girl had accused him of physically and sexually assaulting her 2 days earlier. He was charged with Breach of the Peace, Physical Assault, Sexual Assault and Lewd and Libidinous practices.

On asking what evidence she had produced – there was none – no bruises, no medical report, no witnesses. John did admit to speaking to the girl and also to making a comment – this admission was to cost him dearly. Had a lawyer been present perhaps this would not have happened, who knows… However, John was denied a lawyer by the police as our law allows.
The police asked him if he understood what was happening and he said yes – he did not want to appear stupid. Very serious accusations had been made. Did John really understand – we don’t think so. He was in an intimidating situation and was anxious to tell his parents what had happened. John is dyslexic and has been called stupid so many times – he didn’t want to appear so in the police station.

John had spoken to the girl 2 days earlier. She approached him and walked along the street with him chatting away. John says she appeared to have had a little something to make her merry. Apparently this girl was late home and told her mother the reason she was late was that John had abused her. Understandably her mother insisted she go to the police. What mother wouldn’t?

About 5 days after the initial charges the police came to the door. John was to be taken to the police station and charged with exactly the same offences on 2 other girls which allegedly happened months earlier.John’s mother asked if she could get a lawyer. The police said that he was not entitled to a lawyer. John was kept in the cells for a horrifying 10 hours.
Our law allows this.
Ask yourself, no matter whether you are guilty or innocent, would you like to be denied a lawyer when facing the police and serious charges. Put yourself in the position of being innocent and having no previous contact with the police – alone and confused and in a police cell for 10 long hours. A lawyer is just what you would need and this should never be denied to anyone. This law needs to change for justice to prevail in Scotland.

His 3 teenage accusers were all friends – “Best Friends”.
Some girls who are abused don’t tell anyone about it but for 2 of them to have been abused by a person known to both of them and for neither to tell anyone else and then for the third friend to be abused by the same person – many would find that unbelievable.
Then, when the 3rd friend is abused suddenly they lose all their previous inhibitions about “telling” and ALL go to the police.
Make your own decision.

The case came to court in March 2004. John had 9 serious charges against him. Where was the case tried – in the Sheriff court – One Man, Judge and Jury. This outcome was to affect John’s life yet there is no entitlement in Scotland to be judged by a jury of your own peers. Ask yourself another question – which would you prefer. One person or a jury? The law does not give you the right to trial by jury in Scotland.
The law SHOULD.
The Sheriff court has its place in our legal system, but surely this should not be for serious charges where the defendant is pleading innocent. Give those who plead innocent a fair trial and let those who plead guilty to minor charges be dealt with by our Sheriff Court system.

On the day of the trial one of the “victims” did not turn up. One refused to give evidence. That left one. No tangible physical evidence was produced.
John’s lawyer told him he had arranged that if he pled guilty to one charge the other 8 would be dropped. Tempting if you’re guilty but if you are not guilty not such an attractive offer.
Initially John agreed but when push came to shove, he could not plead guilty to something he had not done. When he was asked the question in Court he replied “Not Guilty”. This did not go down too well with his lawyer or the judge.

Next trial date was April 2004. More than a year after the initial charge.
It was the same sheriff – John expected a different sheriff as he was obviously not the happiest when John changed his mind.
The Sheriff stated that if the trial went ahead it had to be finished early as he had a doctor’s appointment at 3.30. Whilst we have every sympathy for the sheriff’s need for a visit to his doctor this was an inappropriate and unprofessional statement to make. This is John’s life we are talking about – if the Sheriff’s appointment was life threatening he would not have been in Court. He needs to understand that defendants should not be treated in this offhand and totally unacceptable manner.

John was again offered the change to plead guilty to one charge and the other eight would be dropped –tempting, again John said no.

The 3 girls were all together – court was cleared as they were under age. Their parents were allowed to stay – John’s were not. Eventually John’s lawyer managed to have the mother removed from the courtroom due to the fact the girl was being coached by the mother.

The girls had difficulty remembering many of the details of the days in question. So did John, but then he didn’t place any significance on his comings and goings at the time. He didn’t know he would have to remember. The Judge seemed to believe the girls could not remember but insisted that John answer the question properly. If you genuinely cannot remember then that is the proper answer.
After the evidence had been presented John felt sure he would be cleared. It was not to be. Seconds later the Judge pronounced “Guilty” The outcome was confusing to John and his parents, even now they are not entirely sure exactly which charges Scott was found Guilty of – if this had been a jury trial it would have been abundantly clear.

John was placed on the sex offender’s list for 5 years and given a nine month deferred sentence. A lifetime when you are 16 years old.
One man made this decision.

John's name was in the local paper described as a sex abuser of young girls. He was attacked by the boyfriend of one of the girls. The boyfriend is 19yrs old.

John went back to court in January 2005 after his deferred period; the same sheriff then put him on probation for a further seven months.

Social services were brought in.
The social services told John if he didn’t admit the charges he would be put on the high-risk sex offenders’ list. If he did admit it he would be put on the low risk list. Surely an admission of guilty cannot determine whether you are high or low risk. The seriousness of the crime should be the factor in that decision.

John is almost at the end of his further 7 months probation but no matter what this will stay with him for life.

John is adamant that he was absolutely innocent of any physical or sexual abuse. He admits he once made a comment to one of the girls. So what did he admit to the police that he said…? John, like many young teenagers has a genital body piercing. One of the girls asked him if it was sore – he stupidly answered ”Why, do you want to kiss it better?” That answer will haunt John for the rest of his life. I wonder how many teenagers have made a comment like that.
Too many to imagine I’d guess. It’s easily answered with a No Thank You.

You’ve read John’s story. The courts found him guilty. He still vehemently protests his innocence. Did he get the hearing that charges of such a serious nature demands. John doesn’t think so, his parents don’t think so and many people who know the case don’t think so. He and others like him deserve a proper court hearing, with a proper jury and to be treated like a human being.
For one man to be his judge and jury is ludicrous.
Our law allows it.