For The Avoidance Of Doubt

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3uMgcRUYBs

Legal Note.

The Queen v Roy Catchpole

I write this note having been defence counsel at the original trial of The Queen-Roy Catchpole. I am a member of Charter Chambers, called to the bar in 1971.

There may be some residual misunderstanding as to the circumstances in which the prosecution of (Rev. Dr.) Roy Catchpole came to an end. In the ordinary case, an acquittal by a jury after a trial means no more – and no less – than that the defendant has not been shown to be guilty of the offence alleged against him by the Crown, to the high standard of proof required by the criminal law.

The history of the disposal of this case is, however, rather different.

After the first trial ended without any verdicts being reached, at the retrial material emerged – from a witness entirely unconnected to Roy Catchpole – which resulted in the judge immediately stopping the trial by discharging the jury and inviting the Crown to further investigate the material. As a result of the Crown’s further investigations, they took the decision not to proceed with the prosecution, in circumstances where they judged that the case no longer crossed the threshold they apply to all cases, namely that it should have a greater than 50% chance of resulting in a conviction.

No Evidence Offered.

Last week they duly offered no evidence against him in open court, and he was discharged by the judge.

It is worth recording that in discharging him the judge took the unusual, but in this case entirely justified, step of apologising to him in open court.

The case was unusual in that the complainant here was someone of personal integrity who had unfortunately been subjected to serious incidents of assault many years ago and thereafter had been the subject of continuing documented ‘flashbacks’ over the years giving rise to medical diagnosis of PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder).

It was Roy Catchpole‘s case from the very outset that he had behaved with complete propriety towards the complainant throughout, and that he could not understand why she should be bringing these or indeed any allegations against him.

'Confabulation'

The evidence that emerged during the trials, and in particular the evidence that caused the judge to discharge the jury at the retrial – confirmed to my mind beyond any peradventure, that the complaints pursued against him were in fact based on a series of images in the complainant’s mind culled not from the present but from her distant past, some twenty years ago, and that in ascribing those historic events to a modern setting she was in fact 'confabulating'.

This term, unfamiliar to many, does not bear with it any suggestion of deliberate deception but is rather to be seen as an ‘honest’ recounting of created images or alternatively real images placed into a false context.

It would be wrong to suggest that the history of the case - and the defendant's acquittal after the Crown offered no evidence against him - allows for any suggestion at all that he may have behaved at all improperly or inappropriately towards the complainant. It does not.

David Martin-Sperry. Barrister.

In light of this I felt at the time, and still feel today, along with many others that this document alone should have been enough to have all of my powers, status, respect, regard and recognition, rights and privileges as a retired but active Anglican Clergyman and honorary Methodist Minister restored to me.

The sad fact is, both ecclesiastical authorities felt differently. They wanted to try me again in their own 'courts'. A 'Risk Assessment and Safety Agreement'. The complete transcripts of both trials, and my confidential Lambeth File would be pored over and picked apart. An ecclesiastical conclusion would be arrived at on the civil basis of 'The Balance of Probability.'

Even so, I had been prepared to undergo this traumatic treatment by the church. My call to divine ministry is so powerful. But I felt the need of a Protector or Advocate to stand between myself and the ecclesiastical authority.

David had become my friend, and in response to my request, he offered to travel up from his London chambers to visit the bishop at his palace at his own expense. The price, he said, would be a cup of tea and a biscuit. The bishop refused his request. For me, this was proof that the church authorities could not be trusted and did not wish to know the truth. I guess the bishop's reason for denying David was to demonstrate the church's independence in any forthcoming risk assessment process. However, the harrowing experience of Sister Frances Dominica recorded in my previous blog, will help you to understand why I chose not to allow myself to be subjected to a similarly partial, unjust and discriminatory process.

The text of the Legal Note Document was written at my request by David Martin-Sperry immediately following the announcement of my complete exoneration by the Crown.