Options
Freddie Starr sues accuser
Freddie Starr's libel began yesterday with him giving evidence.
Previously the media had always reported Karin as being 14.
Comedian Freddie Starr is claiming damages from a woman who says he groped her when she was 15.
The 72-year-old attended London's High Court on Monday at the start of a two-week slander and libel trial where he faced his accuser, Karin Ward, 56.
Ms Ward denies the damages claims against her and relies on the defences of justification and public interest.
Mr Starr is suing over interviews given to the BBC and ITV in October 2012, statements on a website and those made in an eBook about Ms Ward's life.
He claims he has lost £300,000 because of shows cancelled as a result of the allegations.
Previously the media had always reported Karin as being 14.
0
Comments
I heard they were wanting to prosecute him for eating someone's hamster too, but there was also, "insufficient evidence".
I think everyone fasely accussed should do the same. A message needs sending out that you can't do that to people and get away with it.
I remember reading a bit of her 1000 page+ book a few years ago when it was on Amazon. She claimed to have been abused sexually and psychologically every day from the age of two, and remembered everything in the greatest detail, which in itself is quite suspect.
She's a sad woman who's in need of psychological help. Freddie Starr is a wreck of a man whose health has been made worse by these accusations, though quite how he expects to get money in damages from a woman who's probably got sod all I'm not sure.
It's not about the money, but proving a point publically.
Indeed and I wonder if every single person who was fasely accused made that point the law might have to change in terms of harsher treatment for the people who lie and not allowing the identity of the accused to go public before trial.
100% agree with that
I used to understand where the idea of naming potential abusers/rapists came from and why people try to do things that way but in the last few years I've seen enough incidents that prove the price of naming suspects before finding them guilty is just far too high. Even if people are found innocent there will always be morons who won't believe that and will want to dish out their own brand of justice. Naming anyone before they've been found guilty of a crime is just not the way the law should work in my eyes.
Fair point, but in cases like these it usually turns out that the judge expects damages to be paid regardless.
I totally agree. Some will stoop very low just to try and get money. They don't care about people's reputations being destroyed if they're innocent.
I think the whole point is there is no proof he did anything and he is accusing her of completely making it up.
It's certainly very interesting that he doesn't appear to have been investigated for anything by the police.
I recall a few of the allegations made during the William Roache trial were swiftly shown to be impossible. Mind you I'm not sure why the prosecution put them forward as they were so easily shown to be false.
Mind you in this case I agree with Tassium - Freddy should've let this go. That Freddy flatly denied being on the show when footage was found of him on it will play badly with a jury.
This case is before a Judge, I don't know if that is better or worse.
I think he may have been better not to have brought the case and let it go.
Something else if the incident or Karin Ward is featured in the BBC review and believed what would the situation be if Freddie Starr wins his libel case.
I feel the same way, really. I would prefer the legal situation to be that suspects have the legal right to anonymity, but that the CPS is able to put evidence before a judge in order to get permission to lift that veil. In some cases publicly naming a suspect is a necessary and proportionate action, but in most cases it isn't.
I think that's a much healthier solution than what goes on now. I think the media must take the lion's share of the blame when it comes to suspects being named, often before they have even been arrested. I support a free press but I do think changes need to be made when it comes to this particular issue, and how easy it is for the press to ruin people's lives in general.
Exactly. I cant see even that happening anytime soon though.
If an accused person is dead then sadly the alleged victim has left it too late. If it is a case of police not investigating at the time, sue them.
He was and the DPP decided there was no complaint to answer to. Perhaps if and I hope he does, win, then the BBC and everyone else who carried her story in interviews, will be made to pay damages.
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/woman-tells-high-court-freddie-9481733