“You will be saying that Savile was hard done by next !”
I’m glad you’ve mentioned Jimmy Savile, Mikey. He was not hard done by at all because he never faced any criminal charges, unfounded or not. There has never been any proof, to criminal standard, produced to support his wrongdoing. All there has been are allegations. A lot of them, I accept, but simply allegations nonetheless.
And I’m quite with the earlier posters here. It is a fundamental tenet in English law that you are entitled to see the details of the allegations against you so that you can prepare an adequate defence to them. How anybody can be expected to say what they did or did not do on a specific occasion many decades ago beggars belief. The passing of time does not lessen the seriousness of the allegations but it does reduce, considerably, the ability of those accused to defend them. The “interests of justice” are not being well served by these cases (remembering that the interests of justice do not only apply in one direction).
Of course none of us knows the details presented to the juries in the successful prosecutions mentioned. But on the face of it I am at a loss to understand how convictions were secured for these historical cases. The alleged victim says “I was assaulted by A. DiscJockey or A. FamousSinger on a Saturday night in 1973” and that seems to have been that. It would be impossible for the defendants to describe their movements on the date in question (and I struggle to see how even the victims can remember sufficient detail). But convictions were secured and it makes me extremely uneasy.
Add to this the number of cases where allegations have been made and either acquittals secured or (even worse) no action taken after keeping the suspects on police bail for many months, sometimes running into years, and the whole thing is sits extremely uneasily in my mind.
And it all began with unfounded allegations made against Savile after his death when they could not be properly tested. And, by the way, Jimmy Savile is still dead.