The Halpern affair, which created a commotion in London is at risk, as most witnesses refuse to testify.
At the moment most of the witnesses refuse to testify before the police against Chaim Halpern, one of the city rabbis, who was suspected of several crimes. The police are still investigating the alleged saga for more evidence to allow the filing of an indictment.
At the moment most of the witnesses refuse to testify before the police against Chaim Halpern, one of the city rabbis, who was suspected of several crimes. The police are still investigating the alleged saga for more evidence to allow the filing of an indictment.
However, the special Beis Din has decided not to convene in the time being - until the police say the final word for the affair.
Nonetheless one local activists affiliated with this saga said that in light of the current situation he is concerned that this episode would sink into oblivion and raise dust, like other serious incidents, which were forgotten over time.
In sexual abuse/rape cases the police and courts have very wide powers to impose anonymity and reporting restrictions to protect the victims. In fact things are so heavily weighted towards the victims that recently there has been discussion in the press to give anonymity to the alleged perpetrators as well(e.g. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/18/men-anonymity-rape-cases-bad-idea). If victims come forward anyone (including you Mr blog owner) who even hints at her identity will be held in contempt of court.
ReplyDeleteI asked 2 Rabonim who are against RCH about this blog, and they told me to ask you to shut down.
ReplyDeleteYou are a disgrace.
could you please name the 2 Rabonim
DeleteYou are 100% right.....
ReplyDeleteChaim will become like
http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2013/03/ex-cons-shocked-that-sex-offender-who-served-time-for-child-rape-and-incest-is-now-a-hasidic-rebbe-345.html
Anonymous guy supposedly asks some more anonymous guys.
ReplyDeleteWell, that's convinced me.
It seems quite extraordinary that some "activists" could seriously make a proposal that the police close the case against the accused and hand it over to a Beis Din, namely a body of overseas rabbis, which some of the women allegedly abused have refused to co-operate with, which is convened and selected by his defenders, including an organisation presided over by his ardently partisan father and for which he, unlike the women accusing him, has been given huge sums of money by its supporters for both a defending QC and a top Beth Din professional advocate!
ReplyDeleteFrankly, this seems beyond belief.
The police cannot determine matters which are the responsibility of the Crown Prosecution service, neither can they bypass the jurisdiction of the UK Courts over criminal offences. Although the UK Courts recently sanctioned the hearing and decisions about arrangements related to a divorce case to be assigned to a New York Beis Din, this was specifically in relation to a contracted religious marriage. There is absolutely no question of potentially criminal matters ever being ceded under English law to a Beis Din, whatever arrangements might be possible for mutually agreed civil contests.
It has been widely reported that at least one of the women allegedly abused by the accused had refused to co-operate with the Beis Din. Hardly surprising, given its being so grossly tainted by its being organized by family members, close associates and declared supporters of the accused.
Your report here suggests at least one witness has co-operated with the police, since you refer to lack of co-operation by "most of" the witnesses.
If there is insufficient evidence to mount a criminal prosecution, it is open for such witnesses and all concerned individuals with knowledge of improper and unacceptable behaviour to report it to the Charity Commission. The UOHC is a Charity, and that and other related charities are legally obliged to report all serious incidents involving individuals working or volunteering under their auspices, even if there are only suspicions that improper behaviour has occurred.
http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/Our_regulatory_activity/Reporting_issues/rsinotes.aspx#d
The burden of proof, unlike that in the criminal courts, is for the organisation to demonstrate that it has ensured that no improper behaviour, incompatible with the objects of the charity has taken place, and that suspicions and evidence of such behaviour has been appropriately dealt with to the standards expected by the Charity Commission. Where there are suspicions and accusations, there is no presumption that the Charity and those working or volunteering with it have behaved appropriately until they are demonstrated to have done so.
http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/library/safeguarding_strategy.pdf
The required standard of proof to demonstrate whether behaviour incompatible with a charity's status and legal obligations has taken place is "on the balance of probability" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt. An individual found by such an investigation to have behaved improperly would be required to be registered with the Disclosure and Barring Service, which would mean there would be no possibility of that person being allowed to work or volunteer with vulnerable adults or children.
Trustees and executives of a charity found to have neglected their legal duty, or still worse, actively neglected their legal responsibilities can be summarily removed by the Charity Commission, which can impose its own choice of Trustees or executive personnel .The Trustees can also be held legally responsible for damages in the Courts if they failed to ensure users or beneficiaries of the charity or linked organizations were safeguarded and they suffered abusive or improper behaviour
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Charity_requirements_guidance/Charity_governance/Managing_risk/vicarious.aspx