Rolf Harris defence eyes motives of accusers
BRITAIN: All the victims from Rolf Harris first sex assault trial went on to sue him for compensation, the jury in his second trial heard yesterday.
One had said she wasn’t in it for the money and went to police with her complaint because she was seeking ‘‘closure’’ - but after his conviction sued the disgraced Australian entertainer and won £22,000 (NZ$38,000), Harris’ defence counsel Stephen Vullo QC said.
Prosecutors are using Harris’ convictions in the first trial to bolster their case in the new trial.
‘‘Mr Harris’ previous convictions establish that since 1969 he has a propensity indecently to assault young girls and women,’’ prosecutor Jonathan Rees QC told the jury two weeks ago.
In the new trial Harris, 86, has pleaded not guilty to eight charges over a string of sexual assaults over more than three decades.
The jury has heard that Harris assaulted girls aged 12, 13, 14 and 16, and three adult women including a blind and disabled woman.
The jury was told the prosecution will finish its case on Tuesday, UK time, and the defence is expected to begin in the morning.
The last prosecution witness was detective constable Tony Atkin, who ran the investigation into Harris and was on the investigation team for the first trial.
Vullo asked what police had told Harris’ victims in the previous trial about their right to compensation, either from the state or by suing Harris directly.
‘‘There was no suggestion during the (2014) trial process that any complainants wanted to seek compensation or damages,’’ Vullo said.
‘‘Subsequently all four issued proceedings against Rolf Harris … [one complainant] indicated in court as part of her evidence that she had no financial motive and the reason she made the complaint was for closure.
‘‘’Nothing financial?’, she was asked, and she said ‘no’… she subsequently issued proceedings and received £22,000 in damages.’’ Vullo also revealed that Harris hired a team of private investigators ‘‘quite early on’’ ahead of this trial, who were sometimes a step ahead of police in chasing down potential witnesses.
He said relations between the two teams investigating the allegations were ‘‘by and large fairly peaceful’’ but a number of witnesses had been nervous when approached by Harris’ agents, and had contacted police instead.
Vullo quizzed DC Atkin extensively over delays in police obtaining evidence and providing it to the defence.
Atkin conceded that some material had been disclosed late to Harris’ lawyers – in some cases just days before the trial.
At one point Atkin had complained that the BBC were ‘‘drip feeding’’ information to police about shows and events connected with the alleged assaults.
He said police had to ‘‘prioritise lines of inquiry’’ and weren’t able to chase down every possible witness. - The Times