BTP appeal after train manager sexually assaulted.

[pemma]

Do you recognise this man?

Officers would like to identify him after a member of staff was sexually assaulted on a train between Stoke-on-Trent and Manchester Piccadilly.

On 10 November at approximately 10.40am, the member of staff was in a staff only area when she was approached by a man.

She advised him that the toilets were at the other side of the coach, but was then sexually assaulted by him.

Officers believe the man in CCTV images may have information which could help them investigate.

If you recognise him, or have any information, please contact BTP by texting 61016 or calling 0800 40 50 40 quoting reference 302 of 10/11/18.

http://media.btp.police.uk/r/16161/man_sought_after_member_of_staff_sexually_assault

Given it was over a month ago I think BTP should have stated whether it was a London or a Birmingham train even if they didn't want to identify the exact service to protect the identity of the victim.

 

[DarloRich]

This is a really serious issue and you are worried about the train service in question!

The question is: do you know this man.

Not here is a way to figure out who the victim is. Once you have done that do you happen to know this man?

 

[trainmania100]

who the victim is.

If they released details of the train service, passengers on board might know more information that could lead to the sex offenders capture

 

[Ianno87]

If they released details of the train service, passengers on board might know more information that could lead to the sex offenders capture

...or by *not* revealing the train service, passengers that come forward can denonstrate themselves to be genuine to Police by stating whether it was a VT or XC service that it was on.

 

[pemma]

This is a really serious issue and you are worried about the train service in question!

Surely given it was 6 weeks the more information BTP give the public, the more likely the public are going to give some useful information.

Not here is a way to figure out who the victim is.

There's 2tph between Birmingham and Manchester via Stoke and 2tph between London and Birmingham via Stoke, so at the moment the information is as vague as saying "During the morning on the Bletchley to Bedford line"

I think you just want to criticise every comment I post on this forum because I've dared to question when some guards aren't doing their job properly. :roll:

 

[pemma]

...or by *not* revealing the train service, passengers that come forward can denonstrate themselves to be genuine to Police by stating whether it was a VT or XC service that it was on.

As both XC and Virgin stop trains at Macclesfield and Stockport there's a possibly the offender alighted a XC service after the incident and continued to travel north on Virgin (or vice versa.)

 

[221129]

If they released details of the train service, passengers on board might know more information that could lead to the sex offenders capture

And would also be breaking the law which states that a victim of sexual assault has a right to lifetime anonymity.

 

[trainmania100]

And would also be breaking the law which states that a victim of sexual assault has a right to lifetime anonymity.

So am I right in assuming it's okay to share a picture of the blokes face but not the train he was on?

 

[221129]

So am I right in assuming it's okay to share a picture of the blokes face but not the train he was on?

Correct. They are not allowed to release any details that would easily identify the victim.

 

[pemma]

And would also be breaking the law which states that a victim of sexual assault has a right to lifetime anonymity.

Hypothetically say there was only one female guard who signed a particular route, would that mean if any guard on that route was assaulted then the gender of the guard couldn't be mentioned?

 

[Sirius]

Presumably the problem they have is identifying him and not necessarily corroborating events.

They aren’t appealing for witnesses, indeed they may already have some but just don’t know who he is. So identifying the train isn’t of value. If he looks like the bloke who sits opposite you in work, or stands by the bar up your local, then what train it was isn’t really relevant.

 

[221129]

Presumably the problem they have is identifying him and not necessarily corroborating events.

They aren’t appealing for witnesses, indeed they may already have some but just don’t know who he is. So identifying the train isn’t of value. If he looks like the bloke who sits opposite you in work, or stands by the bar up your local, then what train it was isn’t really relevant.

Exactly this!

 

[diffident]

Considering the BTP in their statement have already found the possible perpetrator guilty, there sadly in this instance, is not much chance of a successful prosecution. That in itself is quite shocking, considering the word "allegedly" is missing from their statement.

In any case, from a legal standpoint, identifying the service would not identify the member of staff in question other than to a small group who would know that person was assigned that service. To the public in general, and to the possible perpetrator, that information is similarly of a non-bearing nature.

 

[Mathew S]

If they released details of the train service, passengers on board might know more information that could lead to the sex offenders capture

A few points:

1. It is a *very* serious criminal offence to identify any person who is the victim of a sexual offence.
2. There is a very real risk of committing contempt of court if any information is published which jeapordises a fair trial for the accused (see the Contempt of Court Act 1981).
   
3. Human Rights law is very clear that as well as not identifying the victim it is illegal, pre-charge, to identify the person Police suspect is the perpetrator (see the Cliff Richard ruling).

Speaking professionally, I would suggest that it is extremely unwise to speculate about this case on a public forum. Staff from the Attorney General's Office can and do trawl forums and social media to enforce the law as I've explained above and individuals risk serious consequences for breaking them.

On the subject of BTP, they are also bound by the rules above, and will only release the bare minimum of information they need to in order to achieve legitimate policing aims.

 

[Mathew S]

Considering the BTP in their statement have already found the possible perpetrator guilty, there sadly in this instance, is not much chance of a successful prosecution. That in itself is quite shocking, considering the word "allegedly" is missing from their statement.

The BTP statement says that the staff member was assaulted by "a man." It most definitely does not say that she was assaulted by the man in the photograph.

In any case, from a legal standpoint, identifying the service would not identify the member of staff in question other than to a small group who would know that person was assigned that service.

Identifying the victim to even one person is a criminal offence. It may be that she has not disclosed to her colleagues, for example.

 

[EM2]

Considering the BTP in their statement have already found the possible perpetrator guilty

Er, what?

 

[221129]

Considering the BTP in their statement have already found the possible perpetrator guilty, there sadly in this instance, is not much chance of a successful prosecution. That in itself is quite shocking, considering the word "allegedly" is missing from their statement.

In any case, from a legal standpoint, identifying the service would not identify the member of staff in question other than to a small group who would know that person was assigned that service. To the public in general, and to the possible perpetrator, that information is similarly of a non-bearing nature.

But it would still identify the victim. Which is a serious criminal offence. Also they haven't implied guilt at all.

 

[diffident]

A few points:

1. It is a *very* serious criminal offence to identify any person who is the victim of a sexual offence.
2. There is a very real risk of committing contempt of court if any information is published which jeapordises a fair trial for the accused (see the Contempt of Court Act 1981).
   
3. Human Rights law is very clear that as well as not identifying the victim it is illegal, pre-charge, to identify the person Police suspect is the perpetrator (see the Cliff Richard ruling).

Speaking professionally, I would suggest that it is extremely unwise to speculate about this case on a public forum. Staff from the Attorney General's Office can and do trawl forums and social media to enforce the law as I've explained above and individuals risk serious consequences for breaking them.

On the subject of BTP, they are also bound by the rules above, and will only release the bare minimum of information they need to in order to achieve legitimate policing aims.

Let's just make sure our facts are right here.... "Staff from the AG's Office" would not involve themselves in what is currently a policing investigation and matter. Only when charges are sought or brought would the AG's office (and not the big one in London, but a shoulder CPS office) be involved. Furthermore, any further investigations would be handled by the police and not the AG.

Anyway, serious sexual assault law aside. All members of rail staff have the right to work without hindrance and/or assault.

No one has suggested identifying anyone other than what appears to be a BTP press release which I determine - professionally - to be missing the word "allegedly".

 

[GB]

Considering the BTP in their statement have already found the possible perpetrator guilty, there sadly in this instance, is not much chance of a successful prosecution. That in itself is quite shocking, considering the word "allegedly" is missing from their statement.
.

Think you need to re read the press release again. They have neither implied guilt or pointed the finger except to say the person pictured might have information that could help.

 

[diffident]

Think you need to re read the press release again. They have neither implied guilt or pointed the finger except to say the person pictured might have information that could help.

I have. It implies guilt. It doesn't say that this person has "witnessed" anything. Just that this person "may have information".

To a newspaper journalist, it has guilty written all over it. That is the concern. Yes the member of staff has a right to anonymity, but so does the person in the picture who is at this point, unless there has been a charge laid before him, innocent.

 

[Mathew S]

No one has suggested identifying anyone other than what appears to be a BTP press release which I determine - professionally - to be missing the word "allegedly".

I have. It implies guilt. It doesn't say that this person has "witnessed" anything. Just that this person "may have information".

To a newspaper journalist, it has guilty written all over it. That is the concern. Yes the member of staff has a right to anonymity, but so does the person in the picture who is at this point, unless there has been a charge laid before him, innocent.

BTP haven't identified anyone other than the person in the photo who, in their words, they "believe... may have information which could help them investigate." All journalists (including myself) have legal training which means we know damned well what BTP have said and aren't stupid enough to risk a £5,000 fine - or even up to two years in jail - by speculating.

As for investigations by the AG's office - I suggest you look up some case reports on contempt; or read a good textbook. McNae's is a good place to start - https://oup-arc.com/access/mcnaes24e-student#all_resources

 

[EM2]

Yes the member of staff has a right to anonymity, but so does the person in the picture who is at this point, unless there has been a charge laid before him, innocent.

And how has he been identified? Have the BTP issued his name, or his address, or his occupation, or place of work?
He may have information, that might be that the victim has said 'the assailant bumped into a guy with short hair, glasses and a dark coat before he alighted'. In no way does it say 'he did it'.

 

[diffident]

BTP haven't identified anyone other than the person in the photo who, in their words, they "believe... may have information which could help them investigate." All journalists (including myself) have legal training which means we know damned well what BTP have said and aren't stupid enough to risk a £5,000 fine - or even up to two years in jail - by speculating.

As for investigations by the AG's office - I suggest you look up some case reports on contempt; or read a good textbook. McNae's is a good place to start - https://oup-arc.com/access/mcnaes24e-student#all_resources

And how has he been identified? Have the BTP issued his name, or his address, or his occupation, or place of work?
He may have information, that might be that the victim has said 'the assailant bumped into a guy with short hair, glasses and a dark coat before he alighted'. In no way does it say 'he did it'.

Addressing Mathew S:- The BTP start their release with "Do you recognise this man?". That is akin to a Wanted poster. The statement then lists the allegation, BEFORE mentioning that the person is only sought for information... this should be the other way around. So, in law, should be - "Do you recognise this man? Following an incident on board a train on x date, this man is thought to have information that could be relevant in assisting the police in apprehending the assailant". - I also speak from a professional opinion here.

Addressing EM2:- Publishing a photograph of someone is identifying them. It is not uncommon in the normal continuance of life to be requested to produce photographic identification to identify yourself. The same principle here applies.

 

[trainmania100]

I think this thread should be closed, whatever anyone says is being picked about, if no-one knows the bloke in the picture then the discussion is surely over, and if they do they contact the police and not the forum thread?

 

[EM2]

Addressing EM2:- Publishing a photograph of someone is identifying them. It is not uncommon in the normal continuance of life to be requested to produce photographic identification to identify yourself. The same principle here applies.

Publishing a photograph is not identifying them. Publishing a name, or address, or place of work as well would be, but a photograph alone is not. And I have worked extensively with BTP on similar issues to this.

 

[diffident]

Publishing a photograph is not identifying them. Publishing a name, or address, or place of work as well would be, but a photograph alone is not. And I have worked extensively with BTP on similar issues to this.

...connected with an allegation it is, the person could be identified by work colleagues and be wrongly treated as a result. Plenty of case law in this area. But that isn't a discussion for a railway forum.

 

[Mathew S]

Addressing Mathew S:- The BTP start their release with "Do you recognise this man?". That is akin to a Wanted poster. The statement then lists the allegation, BEFORE mentioning that the person is only sought for information... this should be the other way around. So, in law, should be - "Do you recognise this man? Following an incident on board a train on x date, this man is thought to have information that could be relevant in assisting the police in apprehending the assailant". - I also speak from a professional opinion here.

Addressing EM2:- Publishing a photograph of someone is identifying them. It is not uncommon in the normal continuance of life to be requested to produce photographic identification to identify yourself. The same principle here applies.

I think you're reading far too much into this. It isn't BTPs fault if someone doesn't read their statement properly. There is no ideal way to craft these statements - and remember it's been written by a press officer, not a lawyer or a police officer (though one would hope checked by both of those people).

I think this thread should be closed, whatever anyone says is being picked about, if no-one knows the bloke in the picture then the discussion is surely over, and if they do they contact the police and not the forum thread?

Agreed.

 

[diffident]

I think you're reading far too much into this. It isn't BTPs fault if someone doesn't read their statement properly. There is no ideal way to craft these statements - and remember it's been written by a press officer, not a lawyer or a police officer (though one would hope checked by both of those people).

Agreed.

I wouldn't be accused of reading too much into it if I was the person tasked with representing someone who had been wrongly accused or worse, wrongly identified in this case. I agree the statement has been written without thought to its interpretation. I interpret it in a way, which I have been trained to do. Others will interpret it differently again to that. My interpretation is now quite the point of discussion! I'm sure there are other interpretations including yours.

Before shutting the discussion down, remember, this is a discussion. We are all entitled to interpret anything in any way we wish and debate that within the scope of the law, taste and decency. There is nothing wrong with a good, and heated discussion where it is kept civil and to the points being discussed. I give up with discussions when they get personal - thankfully no-one in this one has been personal, and it has been an interesting debate.

 

[DarloRich]

Surely given it was 6 weeks the more information BTP give the public, the more likely the public are going to give some useful information.



There's 2tph between Birmingham and Manchester via Stoke and 2tph between London and Birmingham via Stoke, so at the moment the information is as vague as saying "During the morning on the Bletchley to Bedford line"

I think you just want to criticise every comment I post on this forum because I've dared to question when some guards aren't doing their job properly. :roll:

The posts I choose to comment on are my business thanks.

In this case it is becuase you are suggesting and inappropriate course of action. Others have explained why.

 

[Mathew S]

I wouldn't be accused of reading too much into it if I was the person tasked with representing someone who had been wrongly accused or worse, wrongly identified in this case. I agree the statement has been written without thought to its interpretation. I interpret it in a way, which I have been trained to do. Others will interpret it differently again to that. My interpretation is now quite the point of discussion! I'm sure there are other interpretations including yours.

Before shutting the discussion down, remember, this is a discussion. We are all entitled to interpret anything in any way we wish and debate that within the scope of the law, taste and decency. There is nothing wrong with a good, and heated discussion where it is kept civil and to the points being discussed. I give up with discussions when they get personal - thankfully no-one in this one has been personal, and it has been an interesting debate.

I would suggest that you are perhaps interpreting it in the way you are precisely because of your training & experience. I've been guilty of the same thing many times, so that's not an accusation in any way. I would hope, particularly in respect of a case as serious as this, that reporting of the BTPs statement will be suitably responsible and ensure that there can be no misunderstanding. (Though I accept that I may be putting too much faith in my professional colleagues - as evidenced by the recent Gatwick fiasco.)

I agree the whole question of privacy/identification in the media, especially in relation to criminal accusations, is very interesting indeed. But, as you've said yourself, not really one for this forum.