Grandfather, 76, who won appeal against sex assault conviction says case against him was a ‘crime’

A short-sighted grandfather who touched a nurse’s breast ‘while trying to read the name badge’ today said it was ‘a crime’ that he was charged with sexual assault after successfully appealing his conviction.

Retired business consultant Andrew Sington, 76, who was compared to the animated cartoon character Mr Magoo by his lawyer, denied any wrong-doing and insisted he had simply been too embarrassed to say he’d forgotten her name.

After instructing a top barrister and clearing his name today, the widower said his ordeal showed that ‘old-fashioned good manners are a thing of the past’.

‘I think it’s an absolute crime that this case was ever taken to court,’ the classic car enthusiast told Mail Online.

‘We’re always hearing about the backlog in the courts, so why was a decision taken to prosecute me?

Mr Sington was compared to the animated cartoon character Mr Magoo by his lawyer at the trial in November

‘This only happened because I’d forgotten the nurse’s name and felt embarrassed to ask it, I did absolutely nothing wrong.

‘But old-fashioned good manners are a thing of the past these days – people just aren’t interested.

‘My reputation has taken a battering over this, and I’m just delighted that I’ve been able to clear my name.’

At the time of the incident on November 13, 2021 at Rowan View medium secure mental unit on Merseyside, Mr Sington, who was not wearing his spectacles, said to the nurse: ‘I am sorry I didn’t mean to touch your boob, I was just checking your name’.

He later insisted he had forgotten her name after being introduced and was too embarrassed to ask, and was trying to move her fleece so he could read it from her badge.

At an appeal at Liverpool Crown Court he admitted touching the female nurse’s fleece and agreed that it had been ‘socially inappropriate.’

But he told the judge, who sat with two magistrates, that ‘in my mind I did not touch her breast.’

He had been at the unit with his partner to visit a patient and the nurse, who is in her 40s, was left in a state of ‘shock and disbelief’ and later reported the incident to senior colleagues.

He had been at the unit with his partner to visit a patient and the nurse, who is in her 40s, was left in a state of ‘shock and disbelief’ and later reported the incident to senior colleagues

She told the court that when introduced, Mr Sington patted her on the arm, which she dismissed as some people are quite tactile.

She was wearing a fleece with the hospital emblem on one side and her name embroidered on the other side and later in the visit, while standing right in front of her, he reached across with the flat of his left hand and touched her left breast over her clothing.

Her colleague immediately intervened by putting his arm in front of her and told how there had then been an awkward atmosphere.

He pointed out to Mr Sington that they had already been introduced and there was no need to touch.

Mr Sington maintained that he had just reached over and took hold of her jacket to read her name – but the court heard that the name was on the other side.

He also told the judge that he suffers from short term memory loss and was not good with names and had forgotten her name after being introduced and was too embarrassed to ask.

Questioned by Joanne Maxwell, prosecuting, if he thought it had been appropriate to use the word ‘boob’ he said it was ‘common parlance on the BBC’ but did not think it was appropriate.

Judge Brian Cummings KC told Mr Sington, of Hale, Greater Manchester, that the complainant had been an ‘impressive’ witness and he and his two colleagues were sure that her evidence that his hand came into contact with her breast was right.

But referring to whether the touching was intentional he said: ‘We have anxiously considered the evidence on that point and in the end we are not sure it was intentional and we allow the appeal.’

He pointed out that was no reflection on the complainant or witness.

Numerous testimonials had been produced today on behalf of Mr Sington, who was described by his lawyer Peter Wright, KC as a member of his local residents committee and of previous good character.

He has also done charitable work throughout his adult life.

Magistrates had imposed a community order with conditions which has now been overturned.

His KC applied for defence costs from central funds but Judge Cummings pointed out Mr Sington had bought the case upon himself to some extent and only allowed half the costs.

Afterwards he told the Mail: ‘Going to court for the first time was a terrible experience for me.

‘It’s not something I’d wish on anybody.

‘Now I’m just looking forward to getting on with my life.’

Source: | This article originally belongs to Dailymail.co.uk