Friday, 26 October 2012


Jimmy Savile: case for the Defence:   by Felicity Gerry

Corrupt Barrister Felicity Gerry wrote  an article for The Times Newapaper defending Jimmy Savile following revelations of his prolific child abuse. 


One might have expected, as a barrister, she would have addressed  the shocking exposure that the Courts, who keep her in champagne,  sent children to DUNCROFT approved school where they would be powerless to protect themselves from mental, physical and sexual abuse of monsters like Jimmy Savile.  But in her article Gerry writes  "the Courts and the Justice system were not to blame"

Instead of revealing the corrupt Court System  Gerry chose to write an apology for Jimmy Savile. Not a surprise because together with paedophiles in the Police she was instrumental is stealing evidence  of  child abuse   from Andrea Davison who exposed  paedophiles in Childrens Homes and Approved Schools  like  Duncroft.  Gerry went on to set-up Andrea Davison and prosecute her enabling the police   to keep the evidence of child abuse and discredit the whistleblower

There is a well known  group of  Police, Judges, Barristers and Politicians  who all part of the Paedophile ring and they still believe they can fool us all.  Anyone noticed Jimmy Sa -VILE! 


Read what she writes in the TIMES? 

 The text of the article is Below. 

"It is worth reflecting on why such cases were not tried in the past and on how much progress the law has made.
The law in the Seventies was rubbish, especially in relation to female victims. That’s why we are dealing with so many historic cases now. I grew up in the Seventies. It was a wonderful and loving time. I was not the victim of child abuse. That my babysitter’s lovely boyfriend was an adult man was not considered odd. Of itself, this doesn’t mean he raped or abused anyone as it is the sex, not the age difference that is (and was) the crime – but I was once told he had a conviction for underage sex and that her parents knew.


The complaints against Jimmy Savile were not dealt with at the time nor was there a later complaint when he was still alive. This means that there will never be a criminal trial although, judging by the letter to BBC employees, it is clear that there is a police investigation – so who knows who might be implicated.
There have also been calls for an inquiry, which would at least allow the evidence to be forensically tested rather than trial by media. The problem is that it is unlikely that these victims will want to give evidence in such a situation. They were vulnerable when young and felt unable to make formal complaints until he was dead. Just as in the Sandusky case recently dealt with in the US, those with suspicions failed to act. Is there a defence for such monstrous allegations? In all the shock at the quantity and detail of the complaints against Jimmy Savile, it is worth reflecting on why such cases were not tried in the past, how much progress the law has made and how much child protection depends on the actions of others.
Underage Sex
For those girls groped or penetrated, the maximum sentence in the Seventies was two years imprisonment and any prosecution for sexual intercourse was could not be brought after 12 months. There was a defence for anyone under 24 and men were commonly not tried if they asserted that they did not know the girl was under age. Sex with girls was not taken seriously. I am sure Savile spun discs such as Young Girl get out of my mind with no discomfort at all, just as everyone else sang along without thinking of the implications. At that time, there was also a requirement that an allegation be corroborated (still required in Scotland but no longer here).
It seems that Savile admitted such “conquests” in his autobiography, implicating police officers in the process. Such conduct was simply not seen as abuse as it is now and was conducted by celebrities, those in authority and others with impunity. The problem in this case is that no one stopped to consider whether it was consensual or not. The law is a great leveller but there can’t be an investigation unless someone tells the authorities something is going on. These days the law is much tougher, victims are assisted to give evidence, sentences are longer and prosecutions are usually successful, if brought to court. The consequence is that people can feel more encouraged about coming forward whether as victims or witnesses and people like me work hard to make sure cases are fairly tried, not swept under the carpet.
The accounts of the women who allege that they were forced to have sexual intercourse with Savile were compelling. In rape trials they often are. Victims feel violated whatever the law. It is important that they complain so that an investigation can be launched. It is just as important that the investigation is conducted properly and fairly looking at the evidence from both sides. A person complaining of rape should be taken seriously but so should someone who denies they are a rapist. In any subsequent trial the stakes are high on both sides. A successful prosecution will depend on the evidence. In some cases this will depend on how accurate the victim is as a witness. In others there will be evidence to support the complaint. Some cases are emotional, some are horrific and some are hopeless. There is no standard rape and all rapes are serious.
Generally sex takes place between two people. Rape trials involve an analysis of a private sexual event. Many victims believe they have been raped when they did not consent. Many suspects say they believed the victim was consenting. The law on rape is (and was in the Seventies) that it is only rape if there was penetration when the victim was not consenting and the perpetrator did not reasonably believe there was consent.
No one should be labelled a rapist if they genuinely believed this was a mutually consensual experience. The consequence is that even where a victim does not consent, a perpetrator may not be guilty of rape because of what was going on in his head at the time. I have prosecuted and defended cases ranging from violent penetration of a disabled child to a momentary encounter between adults in a dark alley outside a nightclub. I can separate my job from my real life but real lives are never more exposed that when examining sexual matters in a criminal court.
Sexual offending is not new. Numerous cases of historic sexual offending have been uncovered across the world. Commonly perpetrators are found in positions of trust or authority – parents, priests, teachers etc. In the past there was little effort to investigate such matters properly, children were disbelieved and cases were not pursued. Nowadays, people feel much more able to complain and allegations of historic abuse are coming regularly before the courts. Anyone who is the victim of past abuse can still go to the police and frankly should. Without a complaint, there is nothing to investigate.
Jimmy Savile may have been a monster or a man of his time, the BBC may or may not be held to account for failing to protect children on their programmes. Those who failed to act will have to live with themselves forever but arguably the courts and the justice system were not to blame. Parliament made the laws that so failed to protect young women and those laws were debated by men who mixed with the likes of Jimmy Savile. Parents, friends and colleagues passed by inappropriate conduct and failed to act. The courts can only sort out the philanderers from the paedophiles if given the opportunity.
There will be a lot of soul-searching over the coming months and no doubt more sordid details about what went on at Television Centre. Sex crime law has progressed enormously with new laws and procedures but attitudes haven’t changed that much as the recent obsession over the boys from One Direction shows. There is still an appetite for youthful sexual activity. However, not all of it will be unlawful.
Felicity Gerry is a criminal barrister with 36 Bedford Row


  1. perhaps Felicity Gerry is chummy with Barbara Hewson .They both have the same disturbing mindset concerning abusive behaviour .Both of these women are pieces of work , who like Rolf Harris will probably always remain that way .Their thinking is so warped.

  2. Ms Gerry says, "..Jimmy Savile may have been a monster or a man of his time..." ??? Surely Savile was a monster, and would have been defined as such in any era; whether now or in 1000 years?


We welcome all points of view but do not publish malicious comments. We would love to hear from you if you want to e-mail us with tips, information or just chat e-mail