AOG, why don't you wait before someone is at least charged, preferably convicted, before concluding that they are guilty? Or does the normal law of England not apply to your thinking ? If he's charged, at least you can say there are reasonable grounds for suspecting, on the evidence available to the prosecution alone, and I stress alone, evidence yet untested or met with any defence, that he is guilty. If he is convicted, you can say that he is guilty, of course.
And it appears that he may be a British citizen. Or had that possibility not troubled your thoughts?