Historic Child Abuser and His  Protector Seek Court Permission to Avoid Cross-Examination

In a contentious legal move, an historic child sex abuser, Geoffrey Highfield  and his protector from prosecution, Ian Danforth have applied to the court to avoid appearing as witnesses in person, sparking accusations that they are attempting to evade face-to-face cross-examination.

The historic child abuser,  and his protector, are alleged to have financial motivations in their involvement, have both cited personal reasons for their application. Critics argue these claims are insufficient and undermine the principles of transparency and accountability in the judicial process. Whilst the defendant today objected to the application.

Grounds for Application

The child abuser protector Ian Danforth,

locally know as 'Jimmy'  has reportedly stated that attending court would cause undue emotional distress, potentially impairing their ability to provide focused testimony.

Meanwhile, the historic child abuser, an elderly individual, claims concerns for safety and mental well-being, citing alleged threats and surveillance-related fears as justification for non-attendance.

Although the actual applications read:

'The witness [ Ian Danforth]  has indicated they may become, emotional,agitated, anxious or distressed if they are able to see the defendant and this will in his opinion will make him less focused and will impact on his ability to answer questions.' 

In regards Geoffrey Highfield, he claims, he's an elderly man, just turned 80, lives alone and has received two letters from the defendant which he describes as threatening and attempts to blackmail him.

Highfield claims how he has had security cameras installed and watches them daily, Since the letters, he feels a 'bit' intimidated by the suspect and the person who delivered them.

He finds himself, looking over his shoulder. Highfield claims he is fearful of seeing the defendant in court and would be less able to focus and be more anxious whilst delivering evidence.

Yeovil Real News, has seen the two legal letters sent to Highfield, which clearly carry no threats, and simply follows the protocol procedures for High Court proceedings for damages, due to the historic sex abuse, towards the defendant in this case and the step daughter of Highfield.

It's understood, Highfield's claims of threats and blackmail were made to Avon & Somerset Police, and investigated by DC Victoria Case, who found no evidence to Highfield's claims.

The defendant , who has objected to the applications today told YRN, today, ' I was not surprised by this application by the pair of them, the fact is Geoffrey Highfield doesn't want to face me in court as he knows I know about his sexual abuse on his step daughter, I even forked out around £10,000 for counselling for his main victim in recent years as she has suffered intensely over the years, due to his rape and sexual abuse. The facts are that he was as by law delivered a 14 day notice of High Court action, which is the legal protocol to take. It advised him to take legal advice and the pending actions. 

' I would like to see the receipts provided of this 'new' CCTV that he claims was fitted, because as far as I'm aware from the person who hand delivered the legal letter, CCTV was also present.

' As for Danforth, well he's openly admitted to me in both speech and written evidence that he has a plan to fleece Highfield for financial gain, rather than him face justice, and this is why he attempts to protect him - money! 

Danforth admits trying to protect £500,000 from Highfield

Danforth fears clearly in my opinion, loss of money due to the High Court Action. Their 'tactic' of delaying my actions, has worked, as we have to prepare for this defence.  

Now they don't want to appear in court to give evidence and proper cross examination? Strange that!' the defendant said.

Objections to the Application

Legal representatives for the defence have strongly objected to the application, arguing that the absence of these witnesses would hinder the defendant's right to a fair trial and that the two applicants are being untruthful with their reasoning.

"Cross-examination is a cornerstone of justice. It allows the court to evaluate the credibility of witnesses directly. Allowing these individuals to avoid appearing undermines this principle," stated a legal expert familiar with the case.

The defense further alleges that the witnesses' absence is not about genuine concerns but a deliberate attempt to avoid scrutiny. They argue that both individuals are fit and capable of attending court, with no medical evidence presented to support their claims of incapacity.

Also the application is outside the time period of 20 days from when the defendant pleaded Not Guilty.

Public and Legal Concerns

The case has drawn public attention, with some questioning whether such applications set a dangerous precedent. Critics warn that granting these requests could open the door for witnesses to avoid court appearances in other cases, eroding confidence in the justice system.

The judge handling the case is expected to rule on the application in the coming weeks. If granted, the decision could spark significant debate over the balance between witness protection and the right to fair and transparent legal proceedings.

The case underscores the ongoing tension between safeguarding individuals involved in sensitive cases and upholding the principles of due process.

Another witness, who is prepared to defend the defendant, told YRN, ' Whilst I can't go into detail pre- trial, this in my opinion is a clear case of paedophile protection in Yeovil in return for money and attempting to derail High Court damage proceedings.'

Geoffrey Highfield has never been interviewed by Avon & Somerset Police as explained by DC Yana Glover here 

YRN will continue to follow the case which has no reporting restrictions.