Risca teacher 'relieved' as indecency ordeal ends

A TEACHER cleared in court of committing an indecent act in a cinema said he was relieved the ordeal was all over.

He thanked the hundreds of parents and pupils who have supported him after a district judge found him not guilty of committing an act of outraging public decency.

Nigel Blunt, 55, of Crescent Road, Risca, had been accused of touching himself inappropriately at Newport’s Cineworld on November 8 last year by a mother and her young daughter.

But, at Cwmbran Magistrates’ Court yesterday, District Judge Richard Williams said they had misinterpreted “something innocent”

in pointing the finger of blame. A trial started earlier this month and the District Judge took the unusual step of visiting the cinema yesterday morning.

He sat where the mother and daughter had been sitting, 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.”

After the trial began earlier this month, hundreds of people took to social networking site Facebook, praising Mr Blunt’s teaching skills and pouring scorn on the allegations.

Mr Blunt said yesterday: “The judge said it all, I am just relieved. I am extremely grateful to everyone who joined the support campaign and this brings closure to it.”

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.

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 layout 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.

District Judge Williams 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.”

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 in dim light.

He added: “Fromtheir 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 was misinterpreted.”

Comments(8)

UpsetResident says...
10:34am Fri 22 Feb 13

I hope the mother in this instance feels bad about not confirming this poor mans actions before dragging him and his reputation through the mud.

Perhaps we should all know her name, occupation and the street she lives on?

I think its important to name and shame convicted deviants, but in too many cases now, women are crying fowl where no wrong-doing has taken place, the men in question get publicly humiliated and vilified only to be found innocent.

but mud sticks.

Katie Re-Registered says...
12:54pm Fri 22 Feb 13

"District Judge Williams 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.”"

Tbh...the judge's verdict on this case does not really seem to bring 'closure' on it. I must admit that I find the mindset of the mother and daughter, and a court of law's seemingly over-readiness to accept that mindset as somehow normal quite bizarre.

This case leaves more questions than answers.

Why on earth is this particular girl so terrified of men? It begs the question as to what a. has either happened to her in the past to make her feel this way; or b. what has been taught to her and by whom to make her so frightened at the sight of a male?

Until these issues are addressed - possibly through psychiatric assistance - I can only see this issue cropping up again and again. Both the daughter - and her mother - are going to have to come to terms with the fact that we don't live in a gender-segregated society and that as the daughter grows up there are likely to be a lot more 'challenging' issues cropping up in relation to the opposite sex than to be 'exposed' to the sight of a man walking into a cinema.

As for Mr. Blunt, this must have been an horrendous ordeal for him and he must be so relieved that it's over. I'm hoping that the mother and daughter understand the impact that their allegations had upon him and their gravity.

One wonders though, as to what would have been the outcome if Mr Blunt had - like many men accused of such crimes - not had behind him the weight of popular support and testimony to his good character from the evidence supplied by hundreds of people who knew him?

How many other innocent guys have ended up in prison in this way and on the sex offenders' register for no other reason than someone felt 'creeped out' by them?

Chunkmeister says...
7:24pm Fri 22 Feb 13

In cases like this, where a person's employment and character have been put at risk, the accuser(s) should now be named, and be made to make a formal apology.

Society will otherwise degrade into one where these spurious allegations will increase in number, because accusers will make allegations without fear of being named, or discovered as serial accusers.

What is the chance that this woman hasn't made similar false accusations in the past? Yet, nobody knows. Nobody will be able to Google this woman's name, and find who else she's alleged to have committed crimes. Unfortunately, Mr Blunt's name is now forever in the internet archive of the Argus, and other sites, for something he didn't do. Sad.

Kane gwent says...
10:35pm Fri 22 Feb 13

After reading the original allegation and having had some pathetic little girl make false allegations against me that isn't true I could understand pathetic little girls do lie and whatever society does we won't change that betas for the mum to lie like she did and teach her daughter that lying about something as serious as this is just outrageous and no matter what the parent thinks she saw for wasting all this time and money they should prosecute to set examples and show its not ok to do what she done maybe a few less people make rubbish untrue allegations and put poor innocent people like mr blunt through hell I know how it feels and can only show sympathy for him and with his father dying days before the trail how upsetting making examples of this woman should be done

shelts says...
12:52am Sat 23 Feb 13

One has to question the role of both Gwent Police and the Crown Prosecution Service in pursuing this case to court.

It seems to me that the judge has actually done the police's job for them and had they actually properly investigated the claims would not have proceeded with the case.

Unfortunately the reputation of an innocent man has been sullied due to unfounded allegations that were clearly not properly investigated in the first place

Dai Rear says...
8:51am Sat 23 Feb 13

shelts wrote:
One has to question the role of both Gwent Police and the Crown Prosecution Service in pursuing this case to court.

It seems to me that the judge has actually done the police's job for them and had they actually properly investigated the claims would not have proceeded with the case.

Unfortunately the reputation of an innocent man has been sullied due to unfounded allegations that were clearly not properly investigated in the first place
This is correct. In particular why the charge of outraging public decency? Basically if CPS had believed the defendant had exposed himself with the appropriate intention they should have charged under the 2003 Act. We know he wouldn't have been visible in that respect and a 2003 Act charge couldn't have succeeded . They should have established that months ago and binned it.Why didn't they? An explanation should be given by Keir Starmer.

Dai Rear says...
10:00am Sat 23 Feb 13

In fact a pattern emerges. The case of the Naked Rambler collapsed at Oxford Crown Court after Christmas. Here Police had sensibly charged Section 5 Public Order Act, harassment alarm or distress, but CPS insisted on elevating it to outraging public decency, which failed after he had been remanded over Christmas. Might it just be that they will use OPD in any case which is poor but which might, just, have some sort of sexual element? And could they be doing that because of fear of what the League of Strident Wimmin might say? I hope I'm wrong but CPS' duty is to make decisions which are just but will sometimes meet "outrage" from some posse of single issue fanatics. It's cowardly and wrong to do otherwise.

rlewis says...
9:39am Sun 24 Feb 13

The fact that this case came to court on the word of some obviously deluded woman is beyond belief.

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