Straw asked to probe Alma case
JUSTICE Secretary Jack Straw has been asked to look into the case of a pensioner found guilty of assault after cuffing a teenager with church meeting minutes.
Teignbridge's MP Richard Younger-Ross is questioning whether mediation should have been used instead of taking Alma Harding to court.
-
Jack Straw
As revealed in the Echo, Mrs Harding was found guilty of assaulting a boy she suspected of causing vandalism while on her way home from a church meeting in Kenton, near Exeter, last April.
Newton Abbot magistrates gave her an absolute discharge, but she will have to pay her own legal costs of £2,270.
After the incident, Mrs Harding was offered a police caution.
But she refused, fearing she would get a criminal record preventing her from working with children.
Mr Younger-Ross said: "I have spoken to the local superintendent and asked him to look into whether they should have considered restorative justice.
"The Crown Prosecution Service, I believe, does not have the option to recommend restorative justice and this is clearly a case where bringing the parties together might have been the most appropriate action.
"I therefore have written to the Secretary of State for Justice Jack Straw to ask him to look at the remit of the CPS in this matter, and whether they should have greater powers to say restorative justice should be tried before further action is taken."
Mr Younger-Ross said he had also requested that the Government looked at this issue.
He said: "I have asked Jack Straw to look at the impact that exceptional cases have on people's records when they wish to work with children. I have also written to the Home Secretary to ask her to look at the guidance given to constabularies on dealing with these matters."
Mrs Harding yesterday said she was unrepentant and would risk going to court again for standing up to vandals.
"I would do it again if I needed to defend myself. If it came to protecting myself and my home, yes I would do it."
Mrs Harding, who ran Newtown Post Office in Exeter with husband Derek for 14 years before moving to Kenton, accepts she now has a criminal record. Speaking from her home yesterday, she said: "I'm not too pleased. But this record gives people the wrong impression as to who I really am.
"I will not be afraid to leave my house to be confronted by these youths again either.
"I will not be intimidated and what has happened will not stop me from going out in the village."
Ken Rogers, an ex-policeman and former chairman of the Exeter and District Crime Panel, told the Echo he was astounded that the case had not been settled out of court.
He said: "There are far more serious offences to be dealt with. I would never have dreamed of even cautioning Mrs Harding."
Readers have inundated the Echo's website www.thisisexeter.co.uk with messages overwhelmingly in support of the pensioner.
11 Comments
View all
by ivan sanders, pickering ,ontario, canada
Friday, February 27 2009, 2:16AM
“Good for you Mrs.harding.we have created a system ,where we are afraid to discipline our children.The political correct are handing us a world full of juvenile delinquents.”
by A BURGE, mid devon
Thursday, February 26 2009, 10:38PM
“well done Alma. The police headed by inspector Clouseau, have wasted time and money on a ridiculous case. There are far more serious things to look at. Lets remember the brazilian electrician who was shot whilst boarding an underground train because he looked like a terrorist.”
by Alex, Cullompton
Thursday, February 26 2009, 6:00PM
“She should have accepted a caution in the first place, saving the taxpayer the cost of a ridiculous court case. If teenager had hit a pensioner there would have been outrage.”
by Richard, Kenton
Thursday, February 26 2009, 1:42PM
“I wish people would realise that a caution is not just a ticking off at the Police Station. It is a criminal conviction secured by an admission of guilt. As such it is entirely inappropriate for anyone who feels they have not done anything wrong.
Mrs Harding's refusal to admit the offence did not require the matter to proceed to trial. The Police and the CPS must have made the decision to do so. They are responsible for their own decisions. In my view the CPS proceeded with a prosecution that was not in the public interest, and thereby contrary to their own guidelines.
The magistrates decided that her conduct deserved no punishment, and so Mrs Harding is in a better position than if she had accepted the caution, She still has a conviction but can point to the magistrates decision as a partial exoneration.
The court's decision also supports the view that the Police and CPS should have decided not to proceed with the prosecution. What is the public interest in securing a conviction where the defendant is considered not to have done anything deserving punishment?
That is why I am convinced that the whole episode was a waste of public money. Mrs Harding is not to blame for that. In fact she has been forced to spend her own money defending herself.
Given the other calls on Police time and resources it is baffling that they chose to make a mountain out of a molehill. I hope the Minister of Justice will be pursuaded to point this out to the Chief Constable, and to the head of the CPS told that his employees must properly consider the public interest.
What I think has gone wrong here is that public servants have lost the ability to see the wood for the trees as soon as "child protection" issues are raised. If the victim had been an adult, or the perpetrator a child, I do not think that the Police would have shown any interest in the complaint. They would have seen the event as entirely trivial.
Mrs Harding is a victim of poor decision making by the Police and CPS. The child is a victim of the predictable publicity arising from the trial. Everyone would be far better off if the Police had never been involved or had shown more common sense.
Given the conclusion of the magistrates one wonders why the CPS had not concluded that there was no Public interest in proceeding. They had all the evidence before themIt is their job to sort out the cases that merit being prosecuted. I also find it surprising that the Police felt it necessary to charge Mrs Harding, after such a minor incident. I am sure that if the boot were on the other foot the teenager would simply have been told not to do it again and Mrs Harding told not to make a fuss about nothing.
It is those who blew the incident up into criminal proceedings who wasted public money. Mrs Harding spent her own money on defending herself”
by Bernard, London
Thursday, February 26 2009, 1:38PM
“It was this woman's right to have her case heard in court. Some people on this site seem to want to be judge, jury and executioner!”