Personally I am absolutely delighted that the former pupil who carried the dreadful memories of being abused by a predatory paedophile for so long has been vindicated by a jury who returned the appropriate
He deserves all our commendations for having the courage to come forward at a time when it might have been easier to remain below the parapet as Dobbie had already been convicted of abusing eight of our fellow pupils.
Dobbie’s election to contest these charges despite his previous convictions meant that it was important that we ensured that nothing should be allowed to derail the trial. The first question that almost every advocate asks on the first day of the trial is: “are the witnesses here?. If they aren’t then the prosecution is in trouble. If they are and the trial has to happen again, some witnesses are unwilling to return.
Some of the comments during the trial were bizarre, such as the post about how do you write down “that the accused and his/her counsel behaved and sounded more guilty that the snake before Eve?” or to forget that a “peeler missed out a full stop”.
Thanks in no small measure to the education that I received at the school, I have plied my trade in the courts for nearly 35 years and the system has adapted to modern day life far more effectively than many of you realise. Far greater consideration is given to witnesses which is why the court is more likely to finish early than late as the prosecutor makes an assessment of how long each witness is likely to take, so that their attendance can be timetabled and thus staggered. If there are 10 witnesses, they will not all be required to attend on the first day of the trial but, say, 4 a day on days 1 and 2 and then 2 on day 3.
The court has also adapted to the fact that we have far more mobility and a far wider knowledge. In this case I anticipate that the jury will have been asked if they know of CH and, if so, whether they or any family member or friend attended the school and, if they have, they ill have been excluded from serving.
We cannot stop juries from looking at their phones but they are all warned at the outset not to do their own research on the internet, etc. While they are considering their verdicts, their mobile phones are taken from them. A jury cannot be kept incommunicado for days on end.
In the normal course of events, we don’t tell juries about a person’s previous misconduct, whether that person is a witness or defendant. And one of the directions that the judge gives the jury in summing up is to treat all witnesses equally, irrespective of the fact that the defendant comes from the dock to give his evidence.
It is not a perfect system but it is the best that we can do..
One of the exceptions to the jury not being told about a defendant’s previous misconduct is where it shows a propensity to commit offences of the kind charged in the case. Dobbie had already been convicted of offences against eight pupils so it seemed to me unarguable that his previous convictions would not be told to the jury. The jury was told of his previous convictions but that was not done until Monday and was not covered by the press and so the forum could not rely upon the newspaper reports to inform you of that.
Sentencing used to be very hit and miss but is now done by reference to a grid or matrix. For sexual offences you can find the guidelines here;
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp ... ne-Web.pdf
The idea is that the same factual scenario will be dealt with in broadly the same way in all courts in the country.
The judge has to determine which of three categories harm the offending falls into and also whether culpability falls under A or B.
A particularly aggravating feature in Dobbie’s case is the fact that he was convicted of offences against eight pupils last summer.
Having been convicted of offending against eight pupils, you might be forgiven for thinking that pleading guilty to number 9 would not make a lot of difference, particularly as his sentence for the ninth victim would be reduced to reflect his guilty plea. And you would be right.
But instead he chose to plead not guilty and tried to lie his way out of it. He also called character witnesses – pillars of the community – to say that he was not the sort of man to commit these sorts of offences, despite having been convicted of precisely that.
Not only is Dobbie a predatory paedophile, he is an inveterate liar who undoubtedly will have tried to use his calling to cover up his offending. That must have been obvious to the member of staff that victim 9 disclosed to. That member of staff appears to have known that not only would it all be swept under the carpet (or cassock even) but that the pupil could be jeopardised in his educational future, and was on the horns of a dilemma. His advice was – as I understand – intended for the long term protection of the pupil but he never forgot and did the honourable thing by giving evidence for the prosecution.
One final thought. Did Dobbie’s interest in boys end when he left CH or did he take it to Shrewsbury with him. If so, is there a storm there wait to erupt?