Sex attack charge against headteacher dropped

August 24, 2009

| Submit Comments | Comments (30) | Previous | Next

Peter Berry, in fancy dress, reading a story to children

A PRIMARY school head accused of a sex attack on a child has seen the charge against him dropped due to lack of evidence.

Peter Berry, 45, head at Great Moor Junior School in Stockport, was charged with gross indecency with a child aged under 16. The charge related to an alleged incident in 1991 in Tintwistle, Glossop, before Mr Berry worked at the school.

The case has been discontinued due to a lack of evidence, following a review by the Crown Prosecution Service.

Mr Berry was due to appear before magistrates in High Peak, Derbyshire, earlier this month but the case was formally dropped in court by the CPS in his absence.

Mr Berry, who lives in Stockport, was suspended from his position when the allegations first surfaced in January this year.

He declined to comment on news the charge had been dropped.

Council bosses in Stockport said a meeting would be held to discuss his future position at the school ahead of the new school year.

A spokesman said: "The council has been informed that the CPS is not pursuing any action as regards Mr Berry.

"Further decisions will be made following a meeting of the appropriate body, which will happen shortly."

Brenda Whittaker, from Derbyshire CPS, said: "The case against Mr Berry has been discontinued. The decision was taken after review due to a lack of evidence."

Education bosses wrote to parents of all pupils at the school, which shares a site with Great Moor Infant School on Southwood Road.

The letter, signed by Stephen Martlew, chairman of governors, made parents aware of an `allegation' against Mr Berry.

Deputy head Kate Bushaway has become acting head teacher.

The school has 326 pupils and is one of Stockport's best-performing primaries. Its last Ofsted report rated it as `outstandingly effective' and praised its leadership.

| Submit Comments | Comments (30) | Previous | Next

Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All

Panzer 391, Salford (24/08/2009 at 09:49)

Who'd want to be a teacher in todays crazy times, upset a pupil they say you did this or that and your life is ruined.

john davis, Broughton, Salford (24/08/2009 at 10:06)

The man is innocent then as no charges have been proven, this is why in my view people charged with these type of allegations are often guilty through media before their trial.

Is It Me? (24/08/2009 at 11:20)

He is ruined any way,poor guy. Why do they have to name him anyway? that should only be done if found guilty! Was the girl named?

tiggerluc, somewhere in shaw (24/08/2009 at 11:51)

It is tricky in these cases. On one hand maybe all parties involved should not be named unless found guilty. But on another I can see why police name the suspects in case they need to appeal to see if any other offences may have been committed against others by the charge suspect.

ebble, manchester (24/08/2009 at 11:56)

If there is a lack of evidence on what grounds was he charged in the first place?

What an unprofessional performance from the authorities concerned. They should have examined the case to see if their was enough evidence to make a conviction likely before charging this man. It is sloppy to charge someone with a crime and then tell everyone later on that there was never enough evidence for a conviction and drop the charge.

Scrub this man's DNA from the database. Don't leave it with the authorities who were so incompetent as to charge him with the crime in the first place.

Tezza, Tyldesley (24/08/2009 at 11:59)

The law really needs looking at

Guten Tag, Manchester (24/08/2009 at 11:59)

Amazing how someone can be named when faced with these and other similar allegations before they are judged to be innocent or guilty. I would say Mr Berry will now be stuck with the stigma even though he's never been convicted.

Mad Welsh Scotsman, Cadishead (24/08/2009 at 12:41)

Why are the council only considering his future with the school, surely he is innocent until proven guilty, which in this case was only by a kangaroo court, i.e. the media.

Cyprus Red, Cyprus (24/08/2009 at 13:13)

This is a really disgraceful performance by the authorities. This 'alleged' incident took place eighteen years ago and charges were brought without the obvious evidence to support it. What happened to the right of every man woman and child to be presumed innocent until PROVED guilty. These allegations should not be released to the press until the case reaches court unless it's a matter of national security.
The teacher has presumably led an exemplary life since 1991 and had his leadership praised. This man should now be allowed to sue the authorities for ruining his life.

Knowsleyman, Paphos (24/08/2009 at 13:17)

This alleged incident happened 18years ago!!!!!!!!!!!!

The accuser is not a child and he/she should have been named in exactly the same way this poor man was.

It is clear that he was doing a first class job at his school and inspite of this there does not appear to be any rush to reinstate this totally innocent man.

The incompetence of the authorities in this case just beggars belief!!!!!!!!!!

Deejay, Bury (24/08/2009 at 13:55)

Hah - to all you naive people who believe in innocence until proven guilty - WAKE UP. The law was changed a few years ago to remove "beyond reasonable doubt", to something more akin to "if it's possible said person could have done it". Accusers can go to court and need NO evidence and make an accusation, and it comes down to one word against the other. justice4kj.com will tell you of the types of horrors that happen to a family when wrongly accused. When the liberal hand-wringing idiots took control of this country - it sounded a death bell to lady justice. There are plenty of people who go through the courts, and are effectively guilty until proven otherwise, and plenty more who go to prison as innocent people.
This poor chap has probably done nothing wrong, and yet he will forever be associated with this. He'll never be able to apply for other jobs etc etc. The media should NOT be allowed to do this - the rights of anonymity afforded to the person making the accusation should be afforded to the accused.
Britain is like the dodo - dead and long gone.

Rob Wilson (24/08/2009 at 13:57)

It is sloppy to charge someone with a crime and then tell everyone later on that there was never enough evidence for a conviction and drop the charge. - ebble, manchester

Im afraid this happens all too often aswell as running trials into the millions without enough or incorrectly gathered evidence so eventually the trials collapse. A complete overhall is needed in the whole system.

j j (24/08/2009 at 14:00)

A total disgrace. Pete is a GREAT headmaster and has had his good name dragged through the mud. I only hope he can pick himself up and continue his life again. My thoughts are with Pete and his family. God knows the suffering they have ALL been through. I suppose the 'unnamed victim' will escape any attempt to be named!

Tezza, Tyldesley (24/08/2009 at 14:13)

Knowsleyman, Paphos

“The accuser is not a child and he/she should have been named in exactly the same way this poor man was”.

NO………… I totally disagree with you neither should be named,

But unfortunately the law allows someone who has been charged to be named even though they have not been found guilty (unless by doing so the victim would be identified)

Cookie 329 (24/08/2009 at 15:04)

Why would someone who had supposedly 'sexually assaulted' a pupil, excel at their job to the extent that promotions mean that they would effectively have very little contact with children?
Could the MEN not have found a different picture of Peter Berry than the one published?
It is very worrying when the reputation of a popular and successful head teacher can be destroyed overnight and without substantiated evidence.

Panzer 391, Salford (24/08/2009 at 15:30)

There is a two tier justice system ( I think using the word justice is a bit optimistic in todays barmy Britain) look at all the women who've made false rape allegations where the innocent victim could face a potential 15 years inside, the bloke gets his name and often picture in the media and she has anonymity, its only just recently one of those crying rape got locked up normally they just get away scot free.

we could go on about the institutional injustice in the UK from now until the end of time, its all about money for those in the legal profession I think.

citycentre, manchester (24/08/2009 at 16:21)

john davis

Seems a reasonable sentiment, although you didnt seem to think so a couple of weeks ago when supporting the wanted poster for Moses Mathias , who has also not been convicted of the crime he is accused of.

Knowsleyman, Paphos (24/08/2009 at 16:55)

Tezza

I entirely agree with what you say.

The point I was making, or at least trying to, is that as the man had already been named then the accuser should have been also named.

I think we both agree that the law on this point is an Ass.

Clearly, this man is not deserving what he has been subjected to.

NWmancCUB (24/08/2009 at 16:56)

Deejay Bury wrote "Britain is like the dodo - dead and long gone".

You couldn't have put it any better....

RT, UK (24/08/2009 at 19:04)

The CPS was totally wrong in this matter if a review of the evidence was required after the charge and found lacking.

This Government have changed the way that the CPS operates to such a degree that they can easily ruin peoples lives at a whim. Perhaps that was the reason. I hope that many people can see what a farce justice has become with these changes. Not to mention Mickey Mouse sentencing guidelines.

Salford Ken, Adelaide, South Australia (25/08/2009 at 00:16)

Now what was it they said about the law? Oh yes - " INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY".

Pity they don't apply this, instead of naming and shaming people. TYhe damage is done even if ther is some form of retraction and apology.

Z M (25/08/2009 at 10:07)

I agree that it is very wrong to publish someone's name in these circumstances. I know this man and it must be terrible for his family. I don't think names should be published unless someone is found guilty.

However, I think that (just as people shouldn't have assumed that he was guilty just because he was charged) people shouldn't assume that nothing happened and so the person who made these accusations was lying and deserves to be villified for 'false accusations'. We don't know what happened and now probably will never know. I'm sure that this outcome will be bad for him in a way because he will not get a chance to defend himself. I'm pretty sure that he's innocent. But the charges were dropped due to lack of evidence, not due to there being no case to answer, so it seems strange to assume that someone just made something up to victimise him. 17 years on? That's a long time to hold a childish grudge.

I don't know what I think, but I do find it strange that everyone assumes that the accuser made it up and should be named and shamed. WE DON'T KNOW what happened, do we? So all that we can agree on is that people shouldn't be names and shamed unless they're convicted of something.

SteveDB (25/08/2009 at 14:41)

Yet another life and career ruined by unfeeling and unjust procedures. No names should have been allowed to have been reported UNTIL a conviction is obtained, not that it will help the poor guy locally. The press are very quick to sling about terms like 'abuse', 'pervert' etc but have never bothered with the term 'sorry' or used the word 'innocent' when they can use a phrase like 'dropped through lack of evidence' thereby inferring there is 'no smoke without a fire'. I wish Mr Berry well in his future post and I hope he can put it all behind him. As for those who make false accusations and those who seek to sensationalize them; I suggest you look closely at yourselves and then decide if you actually like what you see!

Lynda Buckley (25/08/2009 at 15:17)

I am disgusted that this has been revieled my child was at Great Moor and I would like to comment that Mr Berry was the best Headmaster ever

Z M (25/08/2009 at 19:28)

We don't know if the allegations were false or not - that's the point. He's not been proved guilty but he's not had a chance to defend his innocence against these allegations.

()

Report

News