Maggie Kirkpatrick played a lesbian sexual
predator on Prisoner, so she
must be a bit like that in real life. Therefore if she’s accused of a predatory
sexual offence against an underage girl, she probably did it. There’s no smoke
without fire etc ... I wish there was an emoticon for “descent into illogical
platitudes”.
I bet many people were thinking (or gut
feeling) along those lines when The Freak appeared in court, charged with a 30 year old sexual offence against
a 14 year old girl. Some probably quipped about life imitating art, then made
the same dumb connection. Of course, every media article had to mention “The
Freak”.
I wonder how much magistrate Peter Mealy was
able to separate the TV character from the person when he found Maggie Kirkpatrick guilty.
Judges are supposed to protect defendants
against irrational, emotionally biased connections, gut feelings and every
other means of false deduction which could lead a jury to convict on evidence
which does not constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. That is why defendants need the right to request a judge only trial.
I do not believe magistrate Peter Mealy has met
the law’s obligation to Maggie Kirkpatrick to convict only if the evidence
demonstrates that there is no other reasonable conclusion but guilt.
Look at the “evidence” presented by the
prosecution: a teenage psychiatric patient makes a complaint about a one off
incident 30 years ago, which Maggie Kirkpatrick vigorously denies. That’s it. No
witnesses, no admissions, no physical evidence. There is even some discrepancy
in the evidence as to the time of the “offences”, alleged to be in June or July
1984, while the Logies were on television (in April).
Yet Peter Mealy found Kirkpatrick guilty
because he “considered the victim a witness of truth”. That’s not the point and a judge should know
this. Now Maggie Kirkpatrick has a conviction for sex offences and is
on a sex offenders’ register. Over what? An isolated, 30 year old accusation
from a teenage mental patient?
It’s suspicious that Kirkpatrick invited a
young fan she’d never previously met back to her house, especially one with
mental problems. But that’s the extent of it: she said, she said and actions
that today appear a bit odd. That’s not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
There is no way the evidence presented in this
case meets the criminal standard of proof. The judge is clearly incompetent.
The verdict should be quashed. On this standard of proof, anyone could accuse
anyone else of anything, years after the fact and succeed because they are
"a witness of truth".
As she should, Maggie Kirkpatrick is appealing this absurd travesty of a verdict. Hopefully it
will be overturned.
Citizens should not underestimate the consequences of an unsuccessful
appeal. That would effectively create a precedent for the erosion of the burden
of proof in criminal matters, at least for allegations of sex offences. How
would you defend yourself against a malicious accusation?
