A secondary school student accused a teacher of shoving him against a fence at breaktime.
The teacher denied the allegation, so the matter was listed for trial.
What follows is an account of the allegation against the teacher, the evidence put forward in support of that allegation and the outcome of the trial. The trial took place in open court, but an order was made protecting the identities of the youth complainant and witnesses. I have changed some details to preserve the anonymity of those involved, but the essence of the case remains.
Legislation:
Common assault and assault by beating (battery) are offences under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
Assault by beating, which was the allegation in this case, is the unlawful application of physical force - e.g. the actual physical contact between the offender and the victim. This can either be direct, as with a punch landing, or indirect, as with a stone being thrown and hitting someone. The victim does not need to suffer injury, but if they do it is of a very minor, temporary nature - reddening of the skin, a small bruise or scratch.
In terms of mens rea, these offences require the offender to act intentionally or recklessly.
Although not relevant in this case, the consent of the victim is always a defence against an allegation of common assault or assault by beating.
Scene setting:
Mr Green was a recently qualified teacher becoming established in his new career in an unfamiliar school. Like many new teachers Mr Green had been told the importance of being firm in his approach and unflinching in his application of school rules. Being new to the job he was keen to make a positive first impression in terms of behaviour and classroom management.
Breaktime was half way through the morning. Every breaktime the students would spill out onto the yard at the rear of the school, where they were supervised by the 2 or 3 members of teaching staff on break duty. Mr Green was on break duty on the day in question.
Mr Green could see trouble brewing in the far corner of the yard, with students rushing in that direction to see what was happening. Two students, Freddie and Matthew, were squaring up to each other and becoming increasingly agitated. The crowd were goading the boys into a fight. Mr Green intervened to separate the boys and calm the situation.
Later that evening Freddie went home and told his father about what had happened. Freddie told his father that his friend, Callum, had been witness to the incident. Freddie's father spoke to Callum on the phone to corroborate the allegation. Freddie's father drove down to the school to complain about Mr Green. His father also reported the matter to the police.
The following day Mr Green was informed that an allegation had been made against him and was suspended from work.
The prosecution case:
Mr Green stepped between the two boys to create a physical barrier between them. Matthew turned around and began to walk away, but Freddie wanted to continue the disagreement and decided to follow.
Mr Green put his hand square on Freddie's chest and shoved him backwards towards the fence. Freddie said that Mr Green had done this with such force that he collided with the fence. He said that it left his back red and sore and he was in considerable pain for the rest of the day.
One of Freddie's friends, Callum, had been present at the time. After school Callum had spoken to Freddie's father to corroborate the account that Freddie had given.
Freddie was still complaining of back pain a few days later, so his father took him to an NHS walk in centre. The nurse who examined him found no physical evidence of injury and suggested he took painkillers for a few more days.
The Crown's case was that Mr Green had used force that was unlawful and disproportionate in the circumstances, which had resulted in physical injury to Freddie's back.
The defence case:
Mr Green stepped between the two boys to create a physical barrier between them. Matthew immediately disengaged, but Freddie remained agitated and pushed into Mr Green in an effort to get to Matthew. As Freddie pushed into his body, Mr Green had raised both palms to hold Freddie back, thus protecting both himself and Matthew.
Even though matters had de-escalated before any punches were thrown, Mr Green had made a record of the incident on the school system. His account corresponded with that given in his police interview and maintained in court during the trial.
Mr Green categorically denied pushing Freddie towards the fence.
Despite a large crowd being attracted by the ruckus, the only apparent witnesses were Freddie and Callum. The defence was able to establish that Freddie and Callum had been "best friends" since they started primary school together. Freddie admitted that he disliked Mr Green because he was "too strict" and made lessons "not as fun" as they should be.
Freddie could not explain why no-one apart from him and Callum had witnessed the alleged shove.
When asked why he hadn't reported the incident to any of the other teachers on break duty, Freddie replied that he didn't think about it at the time. When asked why he'd mentioned it to no-one but Callum until he got home after school, Freddie replied that he didn't know.
Turning to Freddie's claims of having a sore back, he was asked why he took part in PE later that day without mentioning it. Freddie replied that he liked PE, so was prepared to put up with the pain.
When asked why the nurse could find no evidence of injury to his back when he visited the NHS walk in centre, he replied that he didn't know.
Freddie said that there had definitely been marks on his back, because Callum had seen them when he got changed for PE that afternoon. Callum, however, had made no mention at all seeing marks on Freddie's body.
The Magistrates' decision:
Mr Green's recollection of events had been clear and consistent from the outset, with him having the good sense to make a record of the altercation at the time it happened.
The evidence of Freddie and Callum, however, had been wholly unconvincing. It had been hesistant, inconsistent and contradictory, with a good smattering of "don't know"s and "can't remember"s thrown in for good measure.
Having weighed up the evidence on both sides, Magistrates could not be sure that Mr Green had committed the offence. In fact they were quite sure he had not.
Mr Green was found not guilty.
Conclusion:
Despite being cleared in court, there is little doubt that Mr Green's reputation and career have been tarnished as a result of an allegation that appears entirely fabricated. He at least has the good fortune that the case has avoided any media attention.
It is a regretable state of affairs that some conniving school children barely bat an eyelid when trying to destroy a teacher's career on a falsehood.
No comments:
Post a Comment