Newport man charged over inappropriate touching of teenage boy

A man has been charged following investigation into indecent assault in Newport

Handcuffed man

This in from the police. Ed

Officers investigating a report that a 14 year-old boy was inappropriately touched over his clothing by a man he did not know in Newport on Wednesday 14 June have charged a man as part of their enquiries.

The teenager was on St James Street at around 3:40pm when the assault happened.

A 36 year-old from Newport has been charged with two counts of sexual assault as part of this investigation and has been remanded to appear at Isle of Wight Magistrates Court on Friday 16 June.

Friday, 16th June, 2017 11:02am



Filed under: Isle of Wight News, Newport, Police, Top story

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


Any views or opinions presented in the comments below are solely those of the author and do not represent those of OnTheWight.


  1. Any reason you haven’t named him?

  2. A fine policy if I might say so, Sally, maybe it should be the norm throughout the national press/media?

    • Yes, I agree. Also, if found not guilty, the accuser should be named.

      • Suruk the Slightly Miffed

        17.Jun.2017 1:01pm

        No. Absolutely not!!!

        Just because someone has been found not guilty does not mean the original complaint was wrong. Sexual assault cases are notoriously difficult to prove to the required “beyond reasonable doubt” level.

        Naming and shaming people who’s alleged attacker is found not guilty will put off people going to the police when they *are* assaulted.

        That does not mean, of course, that those who press malicious complaints should not, themselves be prosecuted and then named if found guilty.

        • Sorry Suruk, but how do you then determine who has made a malicious complaint? Some of the accused have been found not guilty but have had their reputations and careers ruined. Where do they stand?

          • Suruk the Slightly Miffed

            18.Jun.2017 2:43pm

            The same way the Police determine anything.

            They investigate, then charge if they find enough evidence to do so.

            Only around 6% of reported sexual assaults result in a prosecution. Are you seriously saying that 94% of people who report a sexual assault are making it up and should be named and shamed?

            Before you post any more garbage about naming and shaming those who report sex crimes, I suggest you research the subject.

  3. For the second time in 6 weeks I agree with you entirely StSM! One of us must be slipping.

  4. First of all,,, Sally, thank you for the common sense approach. It is nice to see ‘Innocent until proven guilty’ still has a place in the media.
    As for a Malicious complaint, it must be as important to punish a malicious complainant as it is to punish anyone convicted of an assault, otherwise you are turning the Law into a ‘one rule for some and no Law for others’. I have no doubt that some of todays youth would be happy to make claims against someone who stands up to them, and this should be stopped. It must never be used as a weapon to enable an individual to get away with other crimes, and being soft on a malicious complaint does exactly that.

    • Suruk the Slightly Miffed

      18.Jun.2017 3:03pm

      I absolutely agree. DaveIOW, however was stating that the complainant should be named merely because the accused was found not guilty.

      Only 15% of those who suffer sexual violence report it to the police, and only around 6% of reported cases result in a successful prosecution.

      Naming the 94% of complainants who don’t see justice done will just result in the number reported to the Police falling to practically zero and sexual predators being able to offend with no feat of any consequences.

      • Once again, Suruk the blinkered throws out a lot of Statistics (where does he get them from) but does not address the fact that an innocent party has had his reputation and career ruined.
        My comments are not garbage, as he suggests, although some of his comments are. He seems to respond to most of the postings on OTW so he must have lots of time on his hands to force his views onto the other readers.

        • Steve Goodman

          19.Jun.2017 10:12am

          Once again, someone with a weaker argument than Suruk the informative and entertaining throws his toys out of the pram.

          Something else might be worth mentioning here; a reminder that criminal court verdicts, and present prosecution guidelines, do not always reflect the truth of guilt and innocence, as some of us have seen first hand and others can read about.

          Sensitive readers wrongly worried about something being forced through their eyeballs here OTW aren’t being forced to look.

        • Suruk the Slightly Miffed

          19.Jun.2017 12:54pm

          So, if someone, commits a serious sexual assault on *you*, Davey boy, (it does happen to men too), and is either not charged or found not guilty due to lack of evidence, you’d be quite happy to have your name splashed all over the local press, then?

          Glad we cleared that up.

          • I can see why Suruk is now slightly miffed instead of the slayer.

          • Suruk the Slightly Miffed

            19.Jun.2017 8:34pm

            OK. Gloves off.

            A very close friend of mine was sexually assaulted. The filth that did it weren’t even charged due to lack of evidence.

            She, however, has had her life torn apart. A lovely, vivacious, outgoing and friendly girl now frightened to leave her own home.

            So when a microcephalic numbskull like you, Dave, posts garbage about victims like her being named and shamed purely because the filth that committed this vile act didn’t get what was due to them I get more than a little miffed.

  5. Sorry about your friend but this does not justify name-calling in the comments. Innocent people whose details are made public also have their lives torn apart. There is no easy solution, I guess.

Add comment