Risca teacher found not guilty of touching himself inappropriately in cinema

12:23pm Thursday 21st February 2013 in Campaign news

A TEACHER was today found not guilty of committing an act outraging public decency at Newport’s Cineworld cinema.

District Judge Richard Williams said a mother and her young daughter misinterpreted "something innocent" in pointing the finger of blame at Nigel Blunt, 55, of Crescent Road, Risca.

It had been alleged that on November 8 last year, Mr Blunt entered the cinema to watch The Sapphires - a film about an all-girl Aboriginal singing group starring Chris O'Dowd - and had touched himself inappropriately.

The mother and daughter had been the only ones in the cinema apart from Mr Blunt and had been sat four rows behind him.

Defence solicitor Jonathan Holmes said the lay-out of the cinema meant the pair would have been unable to see anything but the back of Mr Blunt’s head and they had mistaken his movements while he scratched his chest.

He said: "They went to see a film they thought was a girlie film. When a man walked in, they were instantly wary, the daughter, frightened. That instant impression clouded what came next."

A trial started at Abergavenny Magistrates’ Court earlier this month and the District Judge visited the cinema this morning.

He sat where the mother and daughter were, with Mr Blunt taking the same seat he was in on November 8.

The case then resumed at Cwmbran Magistrates’ Court, where the District Judge said he believed the complainants were sincere in what they alleged. However, he added: "They believe what they are saying is true, but this isn’t the same as it being correct."

He said from visiting the cinema and sitting where they were it would have been very difficult from them to have seen much of Mr Blunt’s body, especially with the lights dimmed.

He added: "From their sense of apprehension and anxiety that a man had walked in, this affected their interpretation of his movements. I am anything but sure they could see and something innocent could have been misinterpreted."

Comments(23)

Jujtsu1 says...
12:30pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Well done Mr Blunt . We all knew and supported you and knew the outcome would be a not guilty. I hope this doesnt put you off going to the cinema on your own. You were always a film buff when I was in school 20 years. Also well done SWA for printing this story soo quickly.

Report this post »

Jujtsu1 says...
12:35pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Well done District Judge Richard Williams for seeing sense and finding Mr Nigel Blunt not guilty. I started a facebook page to show our support and it currently as 1820 members that KNEW Nigel wasnt guilty. I just hope that this doesnt ruin his teaching career

Report this post »

kristyn.harris@sky.com says...
12:38pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Such a shame that such a lovely gentleman as Mr Blunt should have to prove he is innocent. I have 100% faith in him and always will.

Report this post »

Kevin Ward - Editor says...
12:46pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Note to posters: We have agreed with Mr Blunt not to name the school at which he teaches.
Any comments which breach this agreement will be removed.
Many thanks.

Report this post »

Katie Re-Registered says...
1:07pm Thu 21 Feb 13

"He said: "They went to see a film they thought was a girlie film. When a man walked in, they were instantly wary, the daughter, frightened."

Hmm...I didn't know that there are films that are socially-acceptable to be watched by one gender only. Maybe they should put that on the back of DVDs along with the sex, violence, swearing, themes of drug use guides etc...?

I mean, seriously, for goodness sake! What kind of mythically victorian-esque world are these two living in when they, apparently, collapse into a sobbing mass of the vapors the moment a man (yes, shock horror! oh pass me the smelling salts for I fear I may faint at the sight of a man, mama! ) A MAN walks into the room?

Could, perchance, it be the same sort of perverse yet sexist, stiflingly boringm banal gendernormative world that is brainwashed into believing that it should find it horrifically creepy that a man should elect to see a musical about a 1960s era female pop group over that of a Tarantino style bloodbath in which the socially acceptable *normal* gender appropriate thing to do is to sit there gleefully chalking up the killings, mutilations, wholesale death and destruction, then come out and enthuse to your mates down the pub what a brilliant film it was?! 'Cos that's more respectable, wholesome and innocent right, than - for example - the man who goes to watch Judy Garland in The Wizard of Oz.

What's gonna be the next 'profound and disgustingly offensive' thing that this young woman's Mum chances upon along the roadside and wants to drag to court? Oh no, I went into Waterstones and they had this section called Gender Studies and it was all about how masculinity and femininity are constructed...should
n't be allowed that free speech, that! Can't we put them on trial as witches anymore? Er...whad'ya mean 'since the late 17th century enlightenment...what enlightenment..waaaa
h!'

And most unfairly, the man who has been found totally innocent has been named and identified as to age, job and location yet his accusers remain anonymous and the judge even makes excuses for them. Now what was that 'trial by speculation' charge that Justice Sweeney got on his moral and intellectual superior high horse about as he chided those jurors in the Chris Huhne v. Vicky Pryce trial the other day?

Report this post »

Davi says...
1:13pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Well done Mr Blunt..we all knew you were innocent and thank god there was a Judge who knew this too.It will be difficult to forget about this but do your best to remove it from your mind.Long may you enjoy your interest in films.love to you and your family from a mother whose son attended your school.

Report this post »

Katie Re-Registered says...
1:19pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Ps. When he's got a spare mo, for future clarity could District Judge Richard Williams draw up two lists at the behest of the local self-appointed gender fundamentalist taliban divided into which films are acceptable for women to watch and which films are acceptable for men to watch?:)

Report this post »

SuperTonic7th says...
1:48pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Katie RR you said it all for me. Scary that this can happen though ain't it? Very scary. To the acusers: I think you both need counselling.

Report this post »

Llanmartinangel says...
3:50pm Thu 21 Feb 13

SuperTonic7th wrote:
Katie RR you said it all for me. Scary that this can happen though ain't it? Very scary. To the acusers: I think you both need counselling.
They both need sectioning under the Mental Health Act, as do the idiots who thought there was a case to answer in the first place.

Report this post »

ex-St. Julians boy says...
5:06pm Thu 21 Feb 13

It certainly is getting very scary when some perfectly innocent person can end up in court on a potentially serious charge simply because of some paranoid bystanders imagination.

Report this post »

ccc49 says...
5:12pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Kevin Ward - Editor wrote:
Note to posters: We have agreed with Mr Blunt not to name the school at which he teaches.
Any comments which breach this agreement will be removed.
Many thanks.
I think you may need to read your headline again as you may have given the impression that the teacher is from a school in Risca

Report this post »

Welshman76 says...
8:29pm Thu 21 Feb 13

ccc49 wrote:
Kevin Ward - Editor wrote:
Note to posters: We have agreed with Mr Blunt not to name the school at which he teaches.
Any comments which breach this agreement will be removed.
Many thanks.
I think you may need to read your headline again as you may have given the impression that the teacher is from a school in Risca
I think it implies where he lives not where he works. Misinterpretations have caused this guy enough harm already

Report this post »

pbhj says...
10:20pm Thu 21 Feb 13

IMO the Argus, and all media, should avoid naming people in cases such as this until after a verdict has been reached.

Report this post »

pbhj says...
10:21pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Then they should probably only name those found guilty too!

Report this post »

Tim NPT says...
11:12pm Thu 21 Feb 13

pbhj wrote:
Then they should probably only name those found guilty too!
I totally agree with you.

Report this post »

crasper says...
9:08am Fri 22 Feb 13

How on earth did this even get to court ?
I I read the inital story in total disbelief. The mother and daughter "felt" something was wrong - told the staff who immediately checked and found nothing ! The only problem here is that the mother and daughter need help but not at the expense of that poor man !

Report this post »

County says...
12:35pm Fri 22 Feb 13

Accusations of sex crimes are a stain on one's character that can never be removed, even when found not-guilty. Man can be victims as well.

Report this post »

county mad says...
12:42pm Fri 22 Feb 13

Shame hysteria isn't an offence this man may now be unemployable as a teacher which is palpably unfair,while the hysteria twins carry on as normal ,if they are in fact normal. And yet again the CPS prosecute this and not violent assaults child abuse etc.g

Report this post »

Me, Me, Me! says...
11:00am Mon 25 Feb 13

Absolutely shocking that it went so far in the first place. The accusers should be charged themselves with wasting police time and defamation of character.

Report this post »

DavidMclean says...
8:04pm Mon 25 Feb 13

The mother in this case is the one who needs to be watched. She sounds VERY dodgy.

Report this post »

tracey1962 says...
1:27pm Tue 26 Feb 13

I wonder whether men would now feel frightened if women came to watch Die Hard 4, this is ridiculous and the man should not be named and the mother and daughter should be charged with wasting police time . Would the same be applied if a man complained about a woman scratching her chest from four rows back!!

Report this post »

The_Vulcan says...
6:32pm Tue 26 Feb 13

Its abit dodgy a man going to see that film alone lets be fair.

Report this post »

leah_92 says...
4:14am Thu 28 Feb 13

The_Vulcan says...
6:32pm Tue 26 Feb 13
Its abit dodgy a man going to see that film alone lets be fair.


not really, not everyone got someone to go with them, so why should they just stay home just because they are on their own? at the end of the day these two women should be more aware of what things like this can do to someones job and social life, how would they like it if it was the other way round? and the police say about needing more funding for looking for child abusers and drug deals and murders but yet they can waste money on things like this, i think the women should be charged with wasting police time when they could be doing something else more important.

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree