In the recent trial of investigative journalist Richard Carvath – which ended with the twelve members of the jury finding Carvath NOT GUILTY of stalking complainant ‘Fred Fadge’ (not his real name) – it’s important to note that Carvath’s acquittal was based on running the defence that, in law, Carvath had not stalked Fadge because Carvath had acted to prevent and detect the crime (child sex abuse) of Fadge.
In order for Carvath’s defence to be accepted by the jury, the burden of proof was upon Carvath and Pencheon (Carvath’s barrister), and the standard of proof which Carvath had to meet (or exceed) was the ‘balance of probabilities’.
In other words, to be found NOT GUILTY of stalking, Carvath had to convince all twelve members of the jury firstly that it was ‘more likely than not’ that Fred Fadge is a child sex abuser, before going on to prove that Carvath’s various actions were more likely than not for the purpose of preventing and detecting Fadge’s crimes.
Carvath proved to all twelve jurors that it was more likely than not that Fred Fadge is a child sex abuser, and he did so whilst having to navigate a minefield in regard to the legal admissibility of evidence from several sources which could not be disclosed.
In the end, the jury accepted that it was more likely than not that Fred Fadge is a child sex abuser despite not having heard anything like the full extent of evidence about that.
What’s interesting about the standard of Carvath’s successful defence is that it is exactly the same standard which is required to be met in order for findings to be made in what we’ll refer to here as a ‘Child Custody Court’.
But – BUT – Carvath had to convince not just the one ‘CCC judge’ that Fadge is a child sex abuser, but no fewer than twelve independent jurors.
Fadge went down like a lead balloon before the jury. For one thing, he testified whilst hiding behind a screen, so he couldn’t be seen by – or see – anybody except the judge, the jury and the two barristers.
What kind of a ‘man’ hides himself behind a screen and gibbers nonsense about thousands of people wanting to murder him? The jurors were not impressed – perhaps especially the ladies of the jury.
And what kind of ‘man’ blames everything on a woman – in this case, ‘Tammy Bapswin’ (not her real name) – and the Press? The jurors were not impressed – perhaps especially the ladies of the jury.
And what kind of ‘man’ gets his sister to testify in support of him? That sister cried from start to finish in the witness box. The jurors were not impressed – perhaps especially the ladies of the jury.
The lies came thick and fast from Fadge during his trial testimony.
Fadge testified about a Child Custody Court case hearing in March 2019, at which Carvath was due to testify on behalf of Tammy Bapswin against Fred Fadge (and others) in regard of Fadge’s (and others’) child sex abuse crimes.
Fadge told the jury that he had actually wanted Carvath to testify against him that day!
(Carvath was prevented from testifying because he was arrested by police, in the court building, before he could testify against Fadge.)
Fadge also told the jury that he did not call the police, from the court building, after Fadge saw Carvath enter the court building that day.
However, Pencheon was able to prove to the jury (from police records) that Fadge did indeed call the police on his mobile phone from the court at 10:04am, shortly after Carvath had entered the court building.
Fadge’s credibility fell apart, in a Crown Court, before a jury, under cross-examination by one of the best young barristers practising in England today.
Fadge crumbled when asked by Pencheon, “Are you circumcised?”
Fadge replied, “Yes.”
(The significance of Fadge’s lack of a foreskin was revealed to the jury in Pencheon’s examination-in-chief of Carvath.)
In summary then, in December 2019, a jury of twelve jurors found Richard Carvath NOT GUILTY of stalking ‘Fred Fadge’, the jury having found that it was more likely than not a fact that Fred Fadge is a child sex abuser.