• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested


Excellent.

Any idea what charges? Im guessing it will be about passing information rather than sex crimes. Cant imagine the police want to opem that can of worms
 
Wouldn't surprise me if it's for having loose lips rather than sex offenses

The sex offenses case will be a can of worms they wont open till the timing is right and theyre 100% confident

Will be interesting to see how cooperative he is and what happens when they search his house.

Could be the smoking gun on all kinds of things
 
Excellent.

Any idea what charges? Im guessing it will be about passing information rather than sex crimes. Cant imagine the police want to opem that can of worms

Cases involving abuse of position for a sexual purpose​

As set out above, the essence of the offence of MiPO is conduct that amounts to an abuse of public trust (and/or that harms the public interest) that is sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment.

Members of the public expect to be able to trust persons who hold positions of power to act professionally and not to use their position to instigate (or attempt to instigate) sexual or otherwise inappropriate relationships. Where such an allegation is made, prosecutors should carefully assess whether the suspect was “acting as such” at the time of the alleged conduct and identify as precisely as possible the connection between the power invested in the suspect by virtue of their office and whether the evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that the alleged conduct amounted to a wilful abuse of that power.

These cases are likely to be highly fact-specific, but prosecutors may find it helpful to consider the following (non-exhaustive) factors:

  • The nature and context of the relationship and the balance of power at the time that any sexual advance, activity or intimate relationship began (or was attempted), i.e., was it in the course of a professional relationship, subsequent to a professional relationship or entirely incidental to the suspect’s role in a public office.
  • Whether the sexual relationship or activity was in exchange for the exercise or failure to exercise a power held by the suspect by virtue of their office.
  • Whether there is any evidence that the suspect’s role enabled them to exert power, control or coercion over the victim (the nature and extent of any past or current professional relationship may be relevant).
  • Whether the victim was vulnerable (either during a previous professional relationship or at the time the sexual relationship began) and, if so, the extent of the suspect’s knowledge of their vulnerability.
  • Whether it was an isolated incident or a pattern of conduct on the part of the suspect.
  • The seriousness threshold may be reached on the basis that the public interest is harmed by conduct that has the potential to impact on the objectivity of the suspect in the exercise of their authority or expose them to conflicts of interest or exploitation (whether or not any actual harm is caused and whether or not the relationship was consensual).
  • The fact that the relationship was consensual is not determinative.
  • The sexual conduct or relationship may not, in and of itself, amount to an abuse of the suspect’s power, but any neglect/breach of duty and/or misconduct that preceded it or facilitated it may do. For example, where a suspect has used the police database to obtain contact details of the victim and/or used the police database to identify and target vulnerable individuals this is likely to be an abuse of power whether or not a sexual relationship resulted.
 
Back
Top