News

Pair cleared of child sex charges

By Paul Cassell
December 31, 2012

Two men have told of their relief after they were cleared by a jury of raping and indecently assaulting young girls.

Paul Flynn, 30, of Bath Road, Reading, and Tim Pittway, 49, of Mermaid Close, Winnersh, were among four men facing a total of 47 child sex charges.

The pair were each acquitted last Monday by the jury of all charges relating to the rape and sexual abuse of children following a seven-week trial at Winchester Crown Court.

Their co-defendants, Paul Thomas, 50, from Basingstoke, Hampshire and Jerry Lee Howe, 40, from Accrington, Lancashire, were found guilty of a total of 28 similar offences.

The trial heard the attacks spanned 15 years from the mid-1990s to 2010 and that the victims were abused separately at different times and locations.

After the hearing, Mr Flynn told the Reading Post: “It hasn't properly sunk in yet.

“I feel happy but still in shock as I have waited so long to clear my name, even though I declared my innocence from the very beginning.

“I was proper shaking in the dock knowing my life and future are in someone else’s hands but I am now relieved and can look forward and get on with my life.”

Mr Flynn, a father-of-three, said from the moment of his arrest his reputation was “degraded” by the accusations and that as a result he was forced to quit his job as a storeman in a warehouse.

“All through that time I was livid. I still feel a bit angry that I was brought into all this,” he said.

“It was awful because it’s one of the most serious crimes you can be accused of, and there’s all the pressure of going through it and not knowing what people are thinking.

“When the verdict came in I just went numb, but I am pleased and glad justice has been done.”

On Thomas and Howe, he said: “I feel they have got what they deserved. You cannot go around for all those years and hide what you have done.

“What they have done is sick and no child should have to go through what they put them through.”

Mr Pittway praised the police’s professionalism and while he insisted he did not want to be bitter towards the accusers, he believed lie detectors should form part of court cases.

“I do think one thing they should do is bring in lie detectors,” he said.

“There is an argument for them. They are not 100 per cent reliable but I think if they were used, it would give those that are wrongly accused some kind of chance in their case.”

He recalled following his arrest and throughout the case he felt “dirty and horrible” and when he had been out, he was paranoid that people were watching him.

Describing the moment he was acquitted, he said: “I am just relieved. It has been a horrendous experience, and something I wouldn’t wish upon my worst enemy.

“If people have done something they deserve to get what happens to them, but I felt that it was like being hit over the back of the head with a cricket bat.

“You function but it is just the most awful thing to be accused of.

“You feel despair, it’s the worst feeling in the world. I just want to get my life back on track now.”

Thomas and Howe were remanded in custody and will be sentenced on January 29.

| Submit Comments | View Comments (15)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

Most recent user comments 15 of 15

Purple Turtle........Perhaps you misread what I said which is far from impractical. All that anonimity would involve is for a defendant to be referred to in the media as 'defendant X' or whatever. Thats not impractical as it happens regularly when a judge directs that it should.

Howard Thomas Common Sense party
01/01/2013 at 22:06

Sparky

I was referring to before the court hearing that appeals in the media may have led to the arrest of the person who was eventually found guilty.

The legal position on court proccedings is that tthey are active from arrest and therefore the media must not report anything that is of "substantial risk" of prejudicing any potential trial. If the media does report such information it can be found in contempt of court. Many probably go unpunished due to cost and delaying the case, which it not fair on either party or the taxpayer. If judges don't take action on this that is not the fault of the media, but perhaps the system.

I do think it is the public interest for people to know is a person has been arrested or charged and that the media follow the case and its outcome as a matter of fairness to both prosecution and defence. As I mentioned before, research shows that juries do not tend to be influenced which is what they swear to do under oath. Therefore, personally if I had been charged and faced a court for a criminal offence I would have faith in the British justice system.

I do agree with you that there appears to have been witch-hunts and it cannot be nice to be on the receiving end, but it is right for journalists to investigate stories and find out information. Sometimes this can prove a force for good in discovering injustice and scandal. We also all know which media are more sensationalist and which are renowned for more high end journalism, and all the while there is demand for the former, these stories will continue to appear.

Purple Turtle
01/01/2013 at 15:01

Do remember, as well, that is it wasn't for the media some of those that are responsible for some horrific and heinous crimes may never have been caught.

????? do not understand what this has to do with it. If someone is already in court what benefit has the media to do with a case, if the C.P.S agreed to take a person to court I would suggest the police have all the information they needed to prosecute, and am unsure in how a newspaper giving out a person private info helps a court case The media seem hell bent if giving every little detail of a person private life before they are found guilty or not. Purple Turtle are you telling me this is good practice by the media, that if you found yourself in court for a crime you did not commit you would be happy with the paper coming round your place or work and your house to find out every bit of info on you. As i said before if found guilty then yes give the public all the information they need. Buy if not treat them like they had never been arrested, like all law binding citizens

Sparky M
01/01/2013 at 13:38

Sparky/Howard

What you suggest is not practical. Some trials go on for a few weeks with the amount of evidence, witnesses and particularly if there is more than one defendant. A journalist would have to trawl through the recorded evidence which would take longer than the trial itself. They would also not be able to see reaction of a witness/defendant, which could be key to the trial and the jury's verdict.

At the start of a trial the judge tells the jury they must not be influenced on do any of their research into the case and base the verdict on what they alone see and hear as evidence in court. All the evidence suggests that juries abide by this with the odd exception as nothing is completely full-proof. Journalists must also only report what has been seen/heard in open court in front of the jury. Open justice is the bedrock of our legal system.

Do remember, as well, that is it wasn't for the media some of those that are responsible for some horrific and heinous crimes may never have been caught.

I agree there have possibly been some witch-hunts in some of the national press, but everyone knows of the sensationalism of certain publications, and thankfully as I mentioned before kuries tend not to be influenced and stick to the oath they make in court - To faithfully try the defendant and give true verdicts the evidence.

Purple Turtle
01/01/2013 at 13:07

I'm all in favour of anonimity for the accused in cases like this until found guilty. Some mud will always stick regardless of the verdict of the courts. I know of a case recently where a young man was accused of rape in circumstances that were truly ridiculous and illogical, but the 'case' went all the way to the crown court, taking more than a year to do so, before the girl admitted that she lied. Fortunately for the young man the press didn't pick up on the case. I've no idea if she was charged with anything as a result, but she should have been.

Howard Thomas Common Sense party
01/01/2013 at 11:10

I don't believe any case should be reported on until the case has finished to give both parties a fair day in court and if a person is found not guilty, then the case should not be published at all. To many lives ruined by The Press making a guilty verdict before the courts

Sparky M
01/01/2013 at 09:56

No not at all.

Where did I state every case let alone "your friends" case?

I take it, he never knew the girl?

Crane God
31/12/2012 at 23:10

What a load of rubbish, my friend was accused of rape, never been in trouble with the police before, had his home address, work details and private life plastered all over the press. He was found not guilty as it was proven the girl was lying. So your telling me thats ok to have all that info published about him when he had done anything wrong?

Sparky M
31/12/2012 at 23:02

and to add to Purple Turtles thesis.

In "MOST" court cases the defendants are known to the police and/or are on the peripherals.

The liklihood of you or me walking down a street and being arrested for something as heinious as this, are very remote.

Glad our system works, but these guys maybe need to change their friends etc

Crane God
31/12/2012 at 21:50

The reason people are often not named in these cases is often due to a connection of them to the alleged victim. It is about protecting the victim, not the defendant. Trials need to be reported so we know somone has had a fair trial regardless of whether guilty or innocent. It's called open justice.

Purple Turtle
31/12/2012 at 21:05

Good for them! They should sue their employers, The Police and anyone else who decided to judge them before the trial.

As for the other two - string them up!

Tilehurst Ender, Spencers wood
31/12/2012 at 17:38

Nothing has been learnt by the media/police after the cases of Colin Stagg and Christopher Jefferies and numerous others. Men accused of these crimes are 'evil' but woman linked weith the same offences 'made a mistake' and generally walk punishment free. Pathetic. It still goes on, look at the arrest of the welsh rock star remanded today but the two woman involved 'cant be named for legal reasons' as usual. I'm all for equal rights so lets see things being evened up.

garybaldy
31/12/2012 at 15:52

A TV star questioned by police investigating the Jimmy Savile scandal spent Christmas in hospital amid fears for his mental health.

The man, in his 80s, was admitted to a Priory clinic for treatment for acute stress after being told of the allegations against him.

The children’s TV presenter, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was interviewed last month under caution as part of Scotland Yard’s Operation Yewtree.

So another 2 men's lives have been ruined by having there names published in the press before being found guilty. The law needs to be changed, If guilty hang them out to dry, if not nothing needs to be reported, so they can get on with there lives.

Sparky M

bugleman, reading
31/12/2012 at 12:59

So another 2 men's lives have been ruined by having there names published in the press before being found guilty. The law needs to be changed, If guilty hang them out to dry, if not nothing needs to be reported, so they can get on with there lives.