This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/england/london/6747975.stm

The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Judge is not guilty of flashing Senior judge cleared of flashing
(10 minutes later)
One of Britain's most senior judges has been cleared of flashing at a woman on packed commuter trains. One of Britain's most senior judges has been cleared of exposing himself twice a woman on packed commuter trains.
Sir Stephen Richards, 56, of Wimbledon, was accused of exposing himself to the same woman on trains in south-west London on 16 and 24 October 2006. Sir Stephen Richards, 56, of Wimbledon, was accused of flashing at the same woman on trains in south-west London on 16 and 24 October 2006.
But the Court of Appeals judge told Westminster magistrates the allegations were a case of mistaken identity.But the Court of Appeals judge told Westminster magistrates the allegations were a case of mistaken identity.
Westminster magistrates said the alleged victim was sincere and truthful but the evidence was insufficient. City of Westminster magistrates said the evidence to identify Sir Stephen was insufficient.
'Truthful evidence'
They said in the absence of any evidence supporting the judge's identification and "for this reason only" they could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt.They said in the absence of any evidence supporting the judge's identification and "for this reason only" they could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt.
The woman had captured him on a mobile phone and identified him at a video identity parade, City of Westminster Magistrates' Court heard during the two-day trial. After hearing the evidence, Senior District Judge Timothy Workman said the case came down to Sit Stephen's word against the woman's.
However, he said the woman, a City worker in her 20s, gave "clear, dignified and truthful evidence".
During the two-day trial, the court heard she had allegedly captured Sir Stephen on a mobile phone and identified him at a video identity parade.
Sir Stephen had pleaded not guilty to two counts of "intentionally exposing his genitals intending that someone would see them and would be caused alarm or distress".Sir Stephen had pleaded not guilty to two counts of "intentionally exposing his genitals intending that someone would see them and would be caused alarm or distress".
The father-of-three told City of Westminster Magistrates' Court he could not "perceive deriving any form of gratification" from such an act.The father-of-three told City of Westminster Magistrates' Court he could not "perceive deriving any form of gratification" from such an act.