Tag Archives: Innocent until proven guilty

March 28 2018 – “Assuming guilt” – Daily Telegraph – Letter – Colin Bullen of Tonbridge

IMG_0914

“Assuming guilt”

SIR – The proposition put forward by a parish officer that the maxim of “innocent until proven guilty” should be reversed in matters of church safeguarding (Letters, March 27) is utterly pernicious.

How is anyone to defend themselves against charges to an action that is alleged to have occurred decades before, and is based on no more than the word of one person?

To place the onus of proving innocence on the accused, as opposed to the need for the accuser to prove guilt, is contrary to our most basic freedoms and undermines the rule of law.

Colin Bullen

Tonbridge, Kent

Advertisements

February 23 2018 – Petition – To Reinstate Bishop Bell as a House Name at Bishop Luffa School

https://www.change.org/p/bishop-luffa-school-govenors-to-re-instate-bishop-bell-as-one-bishop-luffa-school-s-8-house-names?utm_medium=email&utm_source=petition_signer_receipt&utm_campaign=triggered&share_context=signature_receipt&recruiter=261774261&j=254048&sfmc_sub=329933803&l=32_HTML&u=46244913&mid=7233052&jb=416562

To Re-instate Bishop Bell as one Bishop Luffa School’s 8 house names.

We would like for either Andrewes house to return to Bell house as Bell has been proven innocent or for Bishop Luffa School to apologise to Bishop Bell’s family for so heavily reacting to rumour even though it is firmly believed in British law that a person is innocent until they are proven beyond any reasonable doubt that they are guilty.

Professor Peter Billingham·4 hours ago
I admire & support this fine initiative and my wife and friends have long been acting & campaigning for Justice for George Bell.

·

Report
Richard W. Symonds·6 hours ago
Justice needs to be done – and seen to be done

January 25 2018 – Lords criticise Church’s handling of George Bell case, as Bishop of Peterborough calls for ‘a major review of anonymity'” – Daily Telegraph – Olivia Rudgard

Lords criticise Church’s handling of George Bell case as Bishop of Peterborough calls for ‘a major review of anonymity’

In a debate in the House of Lords on Monday peers called on the Government to "uphold the cardinal principle that an individual is innocent until proved guilty".  
Peers called on the Government to “uphold the cardinal principle that an individual is innocent until proved guilty”.   CREDIT: PA ARCHIVE 

Peers including the Bishop of Peterborough have called on the Government to protect the identity of people accused of a crime after their death.

One member of the House of Lords said Anglicans were “deeply ashamed” of the Church of England’s handling of the case of Bishop George Bell, who was accused of abusing a child several decades after his death in 1958.

A report published at the end of last year by Lord Carlile found that the highly-respected bishop’s reputation had been unnecessarily damagedby the Church when it publicly named him in an apology to the alleged victim in 2015.

In a debate in the House of Lords on Monday peers called on the Government to “uphold the cardinal principle that an individual is innocent until proved guilty”.

In cases until there is overwhelming evidence to suggest guilt, it seems reasonable for people’s reputations not to be damaged in this public wayRt Revd Donald Allister

Official historian of the Conservative Party Lord Lexden asked home office minister Baroness Williams whether the Government would “review the law governing the naming of deceased individuals against whom criminal allegations have been made”.

He called on the Government to review the law in order to to ensure the anonymity of dead suspects accused by “one uncorroborated alleged witness”.

Fellow peer Lord Cormack added that the case was “deeply shocking” and said “the reputation of a great man has been traduced, and many of us who are Anglicans are deeply ashamed ​of the way that the Anglican Church has behaved”.

The Bishop of Peterborough, the Rt Revd Donald Allister echoed the calls and added: “In all cases where the complainant has a right to be anonymous, there seems to be a case for the respondent also to be anonymous, and in cases until there is overwhelming evidence to suggest guilt, it seems reasonable for people’s reputations not to be damaged in this public way.”

However Baroness Williams said the Government “do not have plans to review the law”.

“Any decision to name an individual where that is considered to be in the public interest will necessarily be specific to the circumstances of an individual case,” she said.