The integrity of the UK criminal justice system has fallen into 'Kangaroo Court' style persecutions due to the 'I believe you' edict of sexual abuse allegations. The 'I believe you' edict of our justice system must be reversed and replaced with objective and neutral investigation. Even juries are told by judges to 'believe' what is obviously untrue because of these crude and archaic guidelines, resulting in miscarriages of justice and innocent people imprisoned.

Rolf Harris was tried at Southwark Crown Court enduring four trials at once. There were four accusers and a total of twelve charges.

Tonya Lee had already sold her story to a magazine so had a financial interest in sticking to the already published story. In court the story was shown to contain serious falsehoods and she admitted that she lied to the police. Despite this Mr Harris was found guilty.

The alleged Leigh Park community centre assault was alleged to have been done at a time when Mr Harris was in fact in another part of the country, and this can be easily proved. A police search for evidence that Mr Harris had appeared at the community centre at this time confirmed that he had never appeared there at all. The police admitted in court that they had NO EVIDENCE that he had even been there, but despite this Mr Harris was found guilty.

The Cambridge celebrity It's a Knockout allegation was made by a woman who claimed she was thirteen/fourteen at the time of the assault. The assault happened in public and yet nobody saw it happen. Mid trial she changed this story to fit an appearance Mr Harris had made at a Star Games event, three years later. She changed her age to sixteen/seventeen and the location  miles away from the site of the original allegation. Despite this Mr Harris was found guilty.

Mr Harris admitted a consensual affair with a woman younger than him but of consenting age. It was shown that this woman had attempted to blackmail him after asking him for £25000 and there was no evidence to show that any under age abuse took place as she later claimed. Despite this Mr Harris was found guilty.

Mr Harris was convicted of all twelve counts after the jury were told by the trial judge to 'recognise a RED HERRING when you see one and ignore it'; but the prosecution barrister had told the jury in her closing speech that Mr Harris' explanations and denials were RED HERRINGS. Was the judge summing up on behalf of the prosecution by effectively telling the jury to ignore Mr Harris denials and explanations? This was a gross burden of bias given to the jury by the trial judge who was supposed to have summed up impartially.

Criminal justice must be based on truth and not the 'I believe' edicts that allows any person to make any claim of abuse against any person and be believed; with cases going to court despite there being evidence contrary to the claims and  the resultant miscarriages of justice.

Mr Harris has been denied a right to appeal and this travesty of justice must be urgently reviewed and his right of appeal allowed.