From Jeremy to Smith
The Making of Regina v Smith
“The Defense counsel’s closing argument was impressive, especially its conclusion...
However, Juliet interpreted one line as a refutation of Jerry’s innocence:
“Hard to prove. That means hard to disprove.”
A sharp-edged phrase.”
(21. “Hard to Disprove”)
NSPCC Inspector
London Branch. Case Ref: Child/77/4092
An NSPCC inspector attended the residence of the child, Julia SMITH, following information received from Mrs. Landenberger. The child was at that time placed in temporary foster care with Mr. and Mrs. LANDENBERGER.
Case Record (Extract)
Assessment of the Child’s Previous Home Circumstances
Information obtained from the foster mother indicates that the child was, over a prolonged period, left in the sole care of her elder brother, then aged approximately sixteen to seventeen years.
The brother is said to have undertaken responsibility for the child’s day-to-day care, including bathing, dressing and sleeping arrangements.
Medical examination has disclosed no physical evidence of sexual interference.
Nevertheless, the child’s behavior within the foster home gives rise to concern. Particular note is made of her apparent lack of ordinary reserve in relation to adult males and of knowledge of certain sexual matters considered unusual for a child of her age.
The foster mother believes these matters may originate from the child’s previous domestic circumstances.
Recommendation
The brother should be interviewed without delay in order to establish the nature and extent of his involvement in the child’s care and to determine whether police investigation is warranted.
Interview Notes
Jeremy SMITH. Male, aged 17 interviewed at current address.
Accommodation extremely poor.
Mr. Smith coughed repeatedly throughout interview. Smoked continuously. Hands observed to be shaking.
He acknowledged undertaking the child’s daily care.
When asked why he considered such intimate care appropriate, Mr. Smith did not give a direct answer. Instead, he offered a lengthy explanation. He claimed that, following the absence of both parents, no adult relative or other responsible person was available to care for the child.
He argued the only alternatives available to him had been either to surrender the child to institutional care or to perform those duties himself.
When questioned regarding physical contact with the child, became increasingly agitated.
Frequently challenged the wording of questions rather than answering them directly.
Repeatedly distinguished between “ordinary care” and “deviant attention.”
Stated: “Children are not objects of my sexual interest.”
Decision
Given the seriousness of the allegations and the circumstances disclosed during interview, the matter was referred to the Metropolitan Police.
Police Escort
Occurrence Book
28 January 1977
11:25—Request for police assistance received from NSPCC Inspector. Police Escort dispatched.
Constable’s Pocket Notebook
11:42. Arrived at address.
Male identified himself as Jeremy Smith.
The suspect was informed of the allegation.
Cautioned.
The suspect stated: “This is fucking Kafkaesque absurdity.”
Search carried out prior to conveyance: One Dunhill lighter recovered from right sweatpants pocket.
The suspect permitted to change into outdoor clothing under supervision.
Further search conducted: £1.37 in coinage recovered from right jacket pocket.
Conveyed to station without further incident.
Metropolitan Police
Custody Record (Extract)
GROUNDS FOR DETENTION: Arrested on suspicion of Indecent assault upon a girl under the age of sixteen, contrary to Section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956.
Police Interview Notes (Extract)
Friday, 28 January 1977
The suspect cautioned.
The allegation was put to the suspect on several occasions.
No reply.
During questioning, the suspect gave no response.
After a period of silence, the suspect stated: “I didn’t do what I am accused of.”
No further comment was made.
One Dunhill cigarette lighter recovered from the suspect upon arrest was shown to him.
When asked who the lighter belonged to, the suspect replied: “Fuck you.”
The suspect gave no further response.
Interview concluded.
Saturday, 29 January 1977
The suspect was again invited to provide an explanation regarding statements made during the NSPCC interview.
No reply.
The suspect was informed that his refusal to answer would be recorded.
No reply.
Questions concerning the allegation and the circumstances of the child’s residence were repeated.
The suspect gave no response.
Interview concluded.
Sunday, 30 January 1977
Questions concerning the circumstances of the child’s residence were repeated.
No reply.
Questions repeated.
No reply.
No admissions made.
Interview concluded.
Investigation Log
No further information was obtained to alter the evidence already available.
The suspect was formally charged at the police station. Charge Sheet completed. Prisoner conveyed in custody to the Magistrates’ Court for first appearance.
Police Transport Docket - The Sign-off
Escort Officer: Received in secure custody.
Court Custody Officer: The suspect and property received at Court cells.
Magistrates Court
Magistrates’ Court Record (Extract)
31 January 1977
Charge formally read.
Prosecution Summary
The defendant, aged seventeen, is alleged to have committed indecent assault upon his younger sister during the period stated in the charge.
The prosecution relied upon:
information supplied following NSPCC involvement;
statements concerning the child’s previous care arrangements;
the defendant’s admitted role as the child’s primary carer.
The defendant was questioned by police and made no admissions.
Plea entered.
The defendant was asked how he pleaded.
The defendant stated: “Not guilty.”
Application for Remand
The prosecution opposed bail.
Reasons stated:
seriousness of allegation;
age of complainant;
need for further investigation.
Observation of Defendant’s Condition
During proceedings the court observed that the defendant appeared physically unwell.
The defendant was unable to remain standing without support and appeared exhausted.
The court requested medical assessment.
Police Surgeon’s Examination (Extract)
Male, aged 17 years.
Patient appears severely unwell and physically exhausted.
Marked pallor. Significant weakness observed. Reduced responsiveness.
Severe cough with wheezing and difficulty breathing.
Chest examination indicates respiratory infection. Urgent medical treatment recommended.
Patient appears dehydrated and undernourished.
Superficial abrasion noted to left cheekbone.
Multiple deep linear abrasions and bruising observed to both wrists.
Patient requires immediate hospital assessment.
Decision
Bail refused.
Defendant remanded to hospital under police escort pending further proceedings.
April 1977
Old Bailey Jury
Regina v Smith. The Central Criminal Court
Opening of Proceedings
The Clerk of Arraigns: “Call Regina versus Smith.”
The Judge: “Is the Crown ready?”
Counsel for the Crown: “Ready, My Lord.”
The Judge: “Is the defence ready?”
Counsel for the Defence: “Ready, My Lord.”
The Clerk of Arraigns: “Jeremy Smith, you stand charged that between October 1975 and December 1976, in the County of Greater London, you unlawfully and indecently assaulted Julia Smith, a girl under the age of sixteen years, contrary to Section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956.”
Judge’s Directions to the Jury
It is your duty to consider the evidence with fairness and impartiality.
The burden of proof rests entirely upon the prosecution.
The defendant is not required to prove his innocence.
If, having considered all the evidence, you are sure of the defendant’s guilt, it is your duty to convict.
If you are not sure, your duty is to acquit.
