Indecent assault conviction

censuspro

I came across disciplinary hearing of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) relating to one of their members that was convicted of an offence for an incident which took place 20 years ago. It seems like a rather unusual case, the link is here but I've copied the details below. How was the prosecution able to secure a conviction for something that happened 21 years ago. I would hazard a guess that there is no physical evidence because the incident happened so long ago?

In a separate case in the May disciplinary orders, the tribunal considered a formal complaint on 13 December 2011 concerning a defendant who was convicted of one count of indecent assault on a female.
Because the defendant’s (who remains anonymous) conviction was for an indictable offence, there is conclusive evidence of professional misconduct under disciplinary bye-law 4 (1)(a). There were also no issues of fact or law to determine as the defendant admitted the complaint, and the tribunal found the complaint proved by the defendant’s own admission.
Matters of the case
The defendant, who is married and has adult children, was found guilty of an indecent assault on a girl aged between 9 and 10 (to whom he was not related) 21 years ago.
The single indecent assault was found by the Crown Court to have taken 10 seconds and the defendant protested his innocence and continues to do so.
The defendant’s conviction was upheld on appeal.
Throughout the 21 years since the offence was committed the defendant has continuously practised as an accountant without any blemish on his record and he has not committed any further offence.
The tribunal was satisfied that to exclude the defendant in these particular circumstances was not necessary, neither was it fair or proportionate.
He was severely reprimand and ordered to pay costs of £2,915.
.

Odelay

"defendant admitted the complaint"

He put his hands up and admitted his guilt, then changed his mind after conviction, protersting his innocence but the appeal used his original admission?

Tbh I'm finding the wording of the report hard to understand.

BornToKill

Is it not that he admitted to having the convinction but denies the indecent assault?

As to how he could have been convicted of indecent assault, I have no idea. In the absence of seeing a case report or the like it's impossible to say, though it seems his version of events must not have been accepted.

Delancey

I read that report as meaning he denied the sexual assault took place and continues to deny it but he admitted that he does have such a conviction on his record.
Does seem strange that it is a disciplinary matter 20 + years later

krd

BornToKill wrote: »

Is it not that he admitted to having the convinction but denies the indecent assault?

As to how he could have been convicted of indecent assault, I have no idea. In the absence of seeing a case report or the like it's impossible to say, though it seems his version of events must not have been accepted.

It's not a court of law. It's a tribunal of the Institute of Chartered Accountants.

Probably by their rules, you have to register every brush with the law at the time it happened.

He probably rubbed a troll up the wrong way, and the troll went digging and found something, and reported him.

coylemj

I'm confused.

For starters, the link provided by the OP points to a completely different case and where does it say when the guy was convicted? I know the offence occurred 21 years ago but when was he convicted?

Either way, the proceedings the OP is talking about were taken under the rules of an accountancy body which is hardly something people here are in a position to comment on since probably none of us are familiar with the rules of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales so can't really see the point of the thread.

ResearchWill

While the report is not clear when the conviction happened, in any case such convictions happen on a regular basis many years post event. Many such cases have gone to HC trying to stop prosecution but failed. In many cases of sexual assault there is no physical evidence only the testimony of the victim, and at best a first complainant witness.

BornToKill

krd wrote: »

It's not a court of law. It's a tribunal of the Institute of Chartered Accountants.

Probably by their rules, you have to register every brush with the law at the time it happened. .

I didn't say otherwise.

BornToKill

Looked it up. Convicted in Oct 2009. That cnviction for an indictable offence is, in turn, conclusive evidence of professional misconduct under the rules of the tribunal. Pages 15-17.

coylemj

Still can't see the point of the thread, why should anyone on boards.ie care about the internal disciplinary rules of the Institute of Chartered Accuntants of England and Wales?

censuspro

coylemj wrote: »

Still can't see the point of the thread, why should anyone on boards.ie care about the internal disciplinary rules of the Institute of Chartered Accuntants of England and Wales?

What comment?

Marcusm

coylemj wrote: »

Still can't see the point of the thread, why should anyone on boards.ie care about the internal disciplinary rules of the Institute of Chartered Accuntants of England and Wales?

Probably because there are some members of boards who are CA (E&W) or who are aware of very similar disciplinary procedures applying in ICAI and other professional bodies. For many a criminal conviction of any sort (excl minor traffic offences) can lead to a permanent ban and loss f employment. Can't imagine many of them involve interfering with a child.