Now the third case is of a man much younger than our usual “customer”. A very fit young man – young as in his mid to late 20s. And from another part of the country. These cases are all hundreds of miles apart. But this is a big city – one of our top ten although not a metropolitan region – it is big: rich: lively. This guy is modern (very) – open and attractive – massively sociable and alert and interested in music, movies, etc and he holds down well well paid sensitive jobs. He is openly gay – out and proud. But for various sad domestic family reasons he lives in his own suburban house with his younger brother who is at school. This is for reasons of his parents parting and their illness.
Q we’ll call him – Q is de facto bringing up his younger brother – loco in parentis. Now that younger brother is no wimp. He is now in his twenties and a serving officer in Iraq in a crack regiment – but at the time of the start of this tale the younger brother would be 14 – 16 years old and at school/ VI form college. I’ll call him Q the guy we came to befriend and learnt great respect for. He came to us via our website Gay Monitor. As I’ve indicated I hope Q is a “star” – very gregarious: a brilliant cook – host of parties, bon vivant, music/ culture great appreciator of – and technically brilliant – fast driver/ computers/ electronics/ sound systems etc. Younger Brother just worships Q (still does) and proudly brings back his school mates to show them their luxury home - house and when opportunity arises introduce them to his amazing big brother Q. Some of the school mates later return and have an independent friendship with Q and in one or three or four cases this involves some attempted or actual form of fairly mild nooky with Q – and in one case in a group a la Bolton Seven. At what age the sex ? Ah ha – that is to be the rub when matters eventually reach the court room floor.
And then…mn. When younger brother has left the house, and the city – off for his army life, one of the old school mates of younger brother moves in with Q. He’d be aged 17/ 18/ 19. But there had been sex before the move in to be Q’s full time live in lover – full blown sex now: holidays together, hosting parties together, an item on the scene together.
For some 5/7 years they are a gay couple but then they split – amicably. And Q eventually goes off with another. But the former lover – young brother’s schoolbuddy now falls / or is entrapped with a lady who is in social work and a Christian of a type. Ah dear.
Can you see what’s coming ?
Q now has a job that is fairly high profile in a sensitive area in a knife edge multi-racial inner city front line district – among young blacks, he’s become a white guru – making new tracks for the disadvantaged with courageous initiatives that are cutting edge and ground breaking.
Then one fine day – along comes a phalanx of vans and cars and officers and bags and boxes and he’s taken to the police station. No charges – I think there were no charges then. Just a police bail and a report back in a month. It was underage sex – and he knew it was the information from his former live in lover because he was told – in abusive phone calls – that the former lover was going to the police.
BEFORE he reported back to the police – Q quit his job. Q knew IF he got charged he could drag down this sensitive project he was heading up. So he left the big challenging job he loved – “personal reasons”. Damage limitation: just in case. After several reporting back to the police station he was charged. He got a top flight solicitor – black rastafarian but ace. They kept things out of the papers – by luck and some skilful management. The charges did relate to an old lover alleging he was messed with by Q when under age.
It was all very odd because Q was friendly with ex lover after their affair broke up. Indeed ex-lover and his lady Q entertained them at dinner parties: all open and lovely. And then – comes this bolt from the blue. Q sniffs around a bit and finds that former lover’s lady has been on courses in child protection and theories of abuse – mostly of United States origin. Ah dear – that’s when he called us.
And we met – got on lovely. Absolutely loved this guy. But eventually of course despite the Rastafarian solicitor doing his damndest to get charges knocked out early this whole mess gets to Crown Court.
The accuser admits they he and Q became an affair after the schoollad had ceased school and sex between them would have been not illegal. He admits he loved him.
He admits never was there any force. Everything was well willing. He admits he loved the gay life. He admits their holidays in the Americas, Africa, Asia were always happy.
But now he is married and he sees it as his duty to say he was messed with mildly by Q when under age.
How mildly ?
That is immaterial rules the judge.
How much under age ?
That is immaterial - rules the judge. The jury must decide under age or not – and if under age that is guilty and no matter how mild the sex.
Many of these arguments took hours and into days – the under age question: the quality of sex question: the irrelevance of sex being consensual and/ or willing. This is irrelevant. With sex if it happened willing or not – underage is the factor. There was the question of “grooming”.
There were then several days of defence witnesses – I’ve never known such an array of praise for a defendant. One after another – they’d had sex with Q – always over age and always willingly – and it all seemed fairly mild sex. They all loved/ admired Q. There were heterosexual witnesses to say Q had “tried it on with them – once and they said no – and he never tried again and they remained and remain friends.
Another day for the judge to sum up. Reasonably fair – pro defendant really.
But the stress is the jury must decide.
Over a day the jury were out – in and out for advice.
Then the ruling from the judge that they could go for a majority verdict.
And then the verdicts out in dribs because there were I don’t know 20 charges.
The jury not guilty on some – but guilty on a 10/ 2 on some.
There seemed no rhyme or reason to the jury’s choosing guilty or not guilty
There was then the weeks again on bail for reports – and eventually the sentencing day and it was/ had to be sadly said the judge “prison” but a sentence of only months and the judge praised Q’s remarkable talents and said “I do not intend prison to break you.”
As the Judge slowly trudged towards his door – Q bellowed from the dock. “Justice has not been done today John.” His Honour turned and gave a short wry sad doe eyed look and then went to his room before the security took Q down.
Well Q is out now – on license: but only a few months of that. He has moved and is living in another city and slowly finding his feet again.
I must catch up with him “WhenIgetroundtoit” !!!
But it is WRONG WRONG WRONG - we maintain such a case should ever be brought.