Category: Thame news

A THAME town councillor has called the town hall the ugliest building he has ever seen, and has called for a new one to be built elsewhere.
Cllr Mike Dyer was speaking during a discussion at last week’s Policy and Resources committee meeting, following a recommendation that

Jury have arrived at verdict for 8 of the 10 charges against him.

Guilty of 1 of 2 counts of indecent assault.

Guilty of 2 of 8 counts of sexual assault.

The jury is still considering verdicts on 2 counts of sexual assault having been directed by the judge that a majority verdict (10 of 12) would be acceptable.

UPDATE

Mr Mankoo has been found guilty by a unanimous jury on count 9 of Sexual Assault (against a temporary employee) and not guilty on count 6 of Sexual Assault (against a client).

Mr Mankoo has been bailed to appear before Reading Crown Court on October 17th for sentencing, in order to put his financial and family affairs in order.

A THAME hair consultant found guilty of sexually assaulting three of his clients and an employee, and of indecently assaulted another client, has been bailed pending sentencing.
Father of four children, Praminder Mankoo, was given bail by Judge Mary Jane Mowat, to allow him to discuss his probable pending absence from them, and to ‘put his financial house in order.’

The judge said: “These are serious crimes and I will therefore need reports from the probation service as to whether there is any element of danger to consider, and to understand the motivation and reasons for re-offending, before I sentence Mr Mankoo.”

A Prevention Order was imposed on Mankoo at the request of the Prosecution, that he should not, in the meantime, massage anyone other than their scalp, and not to treat anyone, except with someone else in the room.

Mankoo will be sentenced at Reading Crown Court on October 17, 2008, and will immediately be placed on the official sexual offenders register.

THE jury in the trial of a Thame hair consultant, accused of indecent and sexual offences against women, was sent home late this afternoon.
After four hours, the jury of six men and six women, had not reached a verdict on two counts of indecent assault, and eight of sexual assault, alleged to have been committed by Praminder Mankoo.

In her summing up, the judge, Her Honour Mary Jane Howatt, explained the legal differences between ‘indecent’ and ‘sexual’ assault. Because the first two charges on the indictment against Mankoo occurred before a change in the law in 2004, they are deemed to be ‘indecent assault’ – the definition of ‘indecent’ being at that time what “right-minded persons would consider indecent in contemporary standard of modesty and decency..” This could include touching which would be made ‘indecent’ if the circumstances make it so.

Because they are alleged to have occurred after the new Sexual Offences Act came into effect on May 1, 2004, the other eight charges on the indictment are those of sexual assault. According the Act:

Sexual assault (1) A person (A) commits an offence if?
(a) he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b) the touching is sexual,
(c) B does not consent to the touching, and
(d) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

A verdict is expected tomorrow.

A report of each day’s proceedings during the previous eight days of the trial is published below.
The easiest way to read them, is to put ‘Mankoo’ in the search box (right-hand side of the Main News section of the website) and a list of related reports, in date order (earliest at the top) will appear.

THE jury in the trial of a Thame hair consultant facing charges of indecent and sexual assault, heard his receptionist describe the defendant, Praminder Mankoo, as “The best boss I ever had – a lovely guy!”
Julie Herron, who has worked at Mankoo’s clinic in Thame since June, 2007, said that she accepted an offer of a massage from her boss after work, for stress in her left shoulder. She said that she removed her top and trousers, and her bra, “because it would get in the way of the massage.”
She told the court that at no time did Mankoo touch her breasts or say anything “inappropriate.”

Miss Herron was asked by the Prosecution Counsel whether her evidence was at all influenced or effected by the fact that she liked her work and wanted to keep her job.”

“No,” she replied.

When repeatedly questioned about how much of Mankoo’s chest she had seen when he was wearing his white, clinic jacket, and whether she had ever seen chest scars (scars complainants had said they had seen when he was undressed), Miss Herron told the Prosecuting Counsel:

“You’re giving me a hard time; you’re a bit scarey!”

Pros. Counsel: “What do you mean?”

Miss Herron: “You’re pushing the point too much.!

P.C : “Some people are saying things differently to you.”

Miss Herron: “I know they are. I am totally surprised that they could say such lies.”

P.C : “Have you discussed things with Mr Mankoo then?”

Miss H : “We have talked about things. It is a horrible situation.”

She refuted a suggestion that she had come to court to lie because she was worried about paying her mortgage.

Three other women spoke today, on day eight of the trial, in Mankoo’s defence, about their experience of his behaviour, saying in turn:
“What I expected – a professional manner.”

“Extremely respectful and courteous with clients.”

“Very professional, straight forward and honest character.”

All the evidence completed, the Prosecution and the Defence then both summed up their cases for the jury. The following are some of their main points:

PROSECUTION

That there is a thread running through the evidence of the women complainants, i.e.
* that they were all complaining of going bald, a very embarrassing condition; all in desperate need of a cure.

* All offered a massage, during which the defendant “chances his arm” (Pros. Counsel’s words) by “groping” their chest area while saying inappropriate things.

* Most of the complainants said something to friends or family about what happened to them.

*That the women did not know each other so their allegations could not be coincidence.

That it was hard to believe that a professional person, against whom someone had made an allegation (the 1998 incident), would accept a caution rather than fight to clear his name, and if nothing else, whether he be guilty of that offence or not, should it not have been ‘flagged up’ to him that he would need to take more care with future patients?”

That Mankoo is “preditory”

That a couple of things the defendant said, are particularly telling i.e.
* That when interviewed about one of the complainants, there was no mention from Mankoo that the incident was consensual, until the officer interviewing him mentioned the allegation about Mankoo getting undressed and the complainant seeing scars on his abdomen.

* That in that same interview, he said: “She’s one that didn’t run out!” – Not just a ‘slip of the tongue’ said the Prosecution, but that Mankoo was indicating that others had taken unbridge with him and “stormed out.”

* That he had said in evidence that he could not control himself because he had an erection.
“He should have learned that a long time ago,” said the Prosecution.

DEFENCE

That Mankoo is entitled to the benefit of any doubt the jury may feel about his guilt.

That it is not a case of who you believe, but whether the prosecution has made “you” (the jury) certain.

That people do sometimes embellish, exaggerate and mis-interpret what happens to them.

That some of the women may have been influenced by what they had seen on TV, read in the news or been told by the police officer in the case of what other women had said.

That he may have been “a foolish, stupid man,” and over-stepped the bounds of decency, in having two extra-marital affairs (the two incidents that he claims were consensual) but that does not make him “a sexual predator or a sexual monster.”

That it is unlikely that a professional man would “take leave of his senses” and jeopordise his business and his family by sexually assaulting six women?

That it was patronsing to women in general to believe that because they were suffering from low esteem due to hairloss, that a woman would not be capable of saying “No!”

That there are inconsistancies in the statements of the first witness, (9 years apart) from the 1998 incident, which therefore made her evidence “inherantly unreliable. “

That several defence witnesses, who had known the defendant for some time, indicated that Mankoo was a man of good character, and “not the type to commit these sorts of offences.”

The judge will give her summing up of all the evidence tomorrow morning (11/09/08), and then the jury will be sent out to consider their verdict on each, individual count.

PRAMINDER Mankoo has been in the witness box for the second day today, and continued to deny most of the eleven sexual and indecent assault charges against him.
Mankoo maintained that the most serious allegation, that he tried to force a patient to commit a sex act upon him, was instigated by the woman herself.
“She was more in control of the situation than I was,” he said, on what was the seventh day of his trial.

Mankoo admitted becoming aroused during a massage treatment on the woman, saying that he allowed her to massage his private parts. (Editor’s paraphrase)

The Prosecution counsel accused him of “telling a pack of lies” about the incident, and that he claimed it was consensual because he was trying to explain away the fact that he knew she had seen his burn scars on his abdomen.

“Absolutley not,” Mankoo replied.

When asked,”Why did you do what you say you did with this witness, knowing you had faced a previous Caution for a sexual assault, and a police complaint from another patient?”

He replied: “I was afraid that if I didn’t comply, I would offend her and she might go to the police, because I had told her about the 1998 incident.”

Following evidence from a second defence witness, an ex-patient, Mankoo admitted that he had not told this witness, nor the ex-GP who spoke in his defence yesterday, the whole truth about the 1998 incident
for which he was cautioned.

When cross examined about not remembering a great deal about one particular complainant, an ex temp. employee, Mankoo was asked how he was then able to say later that she was “quite busty.”

“Do you remember the bust size of all your patients?”
“No,” replied Mankoo.

Three other defence witnesses, including Mankoo’s dentist brother, described him in turn as, “Very honest, caring and someone who “puts the needs of others before his own,” “someone who would be taken advantage of, rather than the other way round,”someone who would do nothing to jeopordise his family, and by his brother, as someone the family would go to for a massage if they felt tense or had a headache,”a good man, gentle, soft and compassionate,” “a great father,” and “easily lead.”

Earlier, Mankoo had told the judge in reply to questioning, that he was treating ladies in an intimate way, without a chaperone or other female on the premises, out of “financial necessity,” because he could only afford to pay for a limited number of receptionist hours.

“I was always concerned,” he said, “because you are putting yourself in a vunerable position. But I couldn’t do anything about it. I was trying to offer a service.”

The trial continues tomorrow at Oxford Crown Court.

A THAME hair consultant, facing several charges of sexual assault and indecent assault, denied in court today that whilst massaging a client in 1998, he dropped his trousers and pants and used offensive, sexual inuendo.
The defendant, Praminder Mankoo, accused the woman of taking down his trousers herself, after “very openly moving around in the chair and moaning and sighing intensely” which, he said, aroused him, adding that she then ma…..ed him.

“I then said,”Enough,” he said. “I zipped up my trousers and carried on with the massage.
“She was a forthcoming, willing participant,” he added.

Mankoo, who runs a hair clinic in Thame, said that he was “scared out of my pants” when arrested following a complaint by the woman, because he had not been given names at that time. He said that he accepted a formal caution from the police adding: ” because I had been at the police station all day, and I was very tired and scared. My wife was heavily pregnant and I had just set up a new business. The negative publicity would have affected my business considerably.”

Mankoo denied remembering seeing two of the complainants before, although he thought one of them ‘looked familiar’ and denied their complaints against him, that he had touched their breasts inappropriately, and in the case of the second woman, of dropping his trousers.

Mankoo denied that anything untoward occured during a massage he offered to a temporary receptionist, because she was stressed. He said they only talked about “things in general” and denied saying: “If these were someone else’s hands, what would you want them to do?”

When questioned by his Defence Counsel about the accusations of several complainants, that he had taken down their bra straps, Mankoo said that he always told clients before hand that they would have to take down their straps so that he could massage their shoulders with oils. He denied asking clients to wear certain types of underwear for their next visits.

A witness for Mankoo’s defence, a retired GP, told the court that he had first met him during a consultation in his home in 2001, for a hair thinning problem she was suffering from. She said that she had never received a massage from Mankoo, that during her treatments she had never felt uncomfortable nor had there been any sexual connotations.

“I found him to be very pleasant, kind and sympathetic, a person of integrity,” she told the court.

She said that Mankoo had told her about his previous caution in 1998, recently at the start of these proceedings, and that they concerned similar matters to his more recent problems. But it had not affected her view of him, she added.

In reply to questions from the Prosecuting counsel, the witness said that Mankoo told her he was accused of touching breasts. “He said that, in the process of massaging arms, he may have touched breasts at the the side accidentally,” she said.

Prosecuting counsel: “Did he not tell you about mas….n, while patients were sexually aroused?

Witness: “No.”

She agreed that if she had been told, it would have changed her view of Mankoo, and that she had been mislead.

The case continues tomorrow at Oxford Crown Court.

Photo: Oxford Crown Court

THE Police are appealing for witnesses following a collision on the M40 yesterday (4/9), between junctions 9 and 8a, in which a man died.
Officers were called after a red Ford Fiesta and a silver Ford Fiesta collided on the southbound carriageway, between junctions 9 and 8a, at 1.50pm. As a result of the collision, the silver car left the road and came to rest on the verge. The red car came to rest on the hard shoulder.

The women driving the cars sustained minor injuries and were treated by paramedics at the scene. An elderly man, who was passenger in the silver car, died at the John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, a short time later.

PC Charlie Etheridge, of Bicester Roads Policing Unit, appealed for witnesses to get in touch: ?There were several people who did not stop at the scene and they could have information which will help us establish how the collision occurred?, he said. ?I would urge them to contact me. I am also keen to hear from anyone who saw either car before the incident and would ask that any witnesses contact me via the 24-hour Police Enquiry Centre.?

PC Etheridge can be reached via 0845 8 505 505. Alternatively, if you don?t wish to speak to police or leave your name, call the Crimestoppers charity on 0800 555 111.

A court heard today how the boss of a former receptionist at a hair clinic in Thame deducted two hours from her time sheet, for a massage during which he allegedly sexually assaulted her.
The woman was giving evidence in the trial of Praminder Mankoo, who denies 11 sexual offences against women, whilst practicing as a trichologist.

The witness said that Mankoo repeadedly asked her if she “wanted to see is little friend” while massaging her head, neck and shoulders, and that she felt him touch her breasts inappriately. She asked him to stop, “umpteen times” she said, because she did not like it. She told him: “I am not going to have sex with you,” to which, she said, he replied: “Have I asked you to have sex with me?”

Defending Counsel, Christine Agnew, told the witness that she suggested that at no time did Mr Mankoo touch her breasts, that he did not mention “his little friend.”
“At no stage did he touch your breasts,” she added, “and you did not mention that you had been abused as a child.” (the witness had earlier told the court that she had told Mankoo this just to try to get him to stop.)

Mankoo told a police officer in an interview that was read out in court today, about his method of treatment.
“My approach is unique,” he said. “I have adapted the procedures because of my experience.”

When interviewed, the court learned, Mankoo denied the allegations of an earlier witness, that he had forced her to perform a sex act on him, saying that it was consensual and not premeditated.
” She asked me to get infront of her and kneel down,” he said. She mas…….ed me and invited me to lay on top of her for intercourse. I said I couldn’t do that.”

“It was a stupid thing to have happened and I am shocked that she is doing this.”

The trial continues on Monday at Oxford Crown Court.

Photo: For illustrative purposes only

THE court in the trial of self-proclaimed hair consultant, Praminder Mankoo, today heard some of his own account of one of the 11 sexual offences he stands accused of.
In a read transcript of a police interview made after a complaint by yesterday’s ‘knight in shining armour’ witness, the defendant, Mankoo, denied that he had asked particularly about the sort of underwear she like wearing. He said that he asked her what she liked to wear generally that made her feel good, including jewellery, make-up etc.

In further questioning by a police officer in the interview, Mankoo denied moving the woman’s bra straps down her shoulders and of seeing her bra at any time. He further maintained that he only massaged her neck, shoulders underneath her top, and her back after she had lifted the top up over her head. He replied with a catagorical “No” to suggestions that he rubbed or caressed her in anyway and refuted massaging her breasts.

“I am well aware to stay away from there,” he said.

Mankoo maintained that the session was only a demonstration of what the full treatment would be and that the complainant was told that the full treatment would involve the removal of clothes and gowns.

“I didn’t want to surprise her with anything,” he said. “I was just trying to improve her self image.”

Earlier in the proceedings the jury had heard from another complainant, one of eight, who had visited Mankoo’s clinic, Hairology in Thame, for the first time in July, 2007. She said that she had called a hault to her ‘treatment’ by asking for a drink of water because she felt that having Mankoo ask her “if she felt sexy” and touching her breasts, “didn’t seem like a normal thing to do for a scalp problem.”

This same witness had to leave the courtroom to regain her composure, after becoming visibly upset as she re-read the statement she had made to the police on the day of the alleged offence.

Mankoo said that after they had left the massage room, the woman sat on a sofa laughing and joking with his receptionist and chatting about the products whe was to take away with her.

“She didn’t look like someone who wanted to get out,” he said.

Another statement, by the sister of a former, temporary employee about an incident that also occured in 2007, was also read out in court this morning. The statement said that Mankoo offered the complainant “a treat for her work there” and after locking the door, had “put his fingers down the front of her chest” and told the woman that he was going to “bring out my little friend” and produced a vibrator.

In the statement, the witness said that her sister had told Mankoo that she had been abused as a child to try to make him stop, and that she had told the employment agency not to send any more women to “that horrible man.”

Her sister had been very subdued and distressed, said the witness in her statement, and had found it difficult to sleep but wanted to put the incident behind her.

The case continues tomorrow at Oxford Crown Court.

Photo: Praminder Mankoo in his consulting rooms; picture from www.hairology.co.uk