Following sentencing at Wimbledon Magistrates, Alastair Main will have to complete 200 hours of unpaid work. His name will be placed on the sex offenders register for five years.
Main — who has reportedly been sacked from his previous job as legal counsel at London-based asset management firm Schroders — also risks being struck off. A spokesperson for the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) told Legal Cheek today:
We are aware [Main’s conviction] and now the court case is concluded, we will seek all relevant information before deciding on the appropriate action.
Main, 35, was accused of pouring a beer over a 27-year-old woman at the London Rowing Club’s 2015 Christmas party in Putney. He was also said to have called her an “Australian slut”.
At trial, the court heard how Maine followed the young woman into the ladies’ toilets, lifted up her skirt and repeatedly slapped her. After “storming out” of the restrooms, he continued to pursue his unnamed victim before apparently giving her another slap on the bum.
The Ashurst-trained lawyer — who accepted that he had followed the woman, but only because he wanted to apologise for pouring beer on her — maintained that the bum slap was “cheeky”. He accepted calling her “a slut” but insisted that the incident was not racially motivated.
Admitted as a solicitor in October 2007, Main was found guilty of aggravated assault and sexual assault earlier this month. He had, until today, been on unconditional bail while pre-sentencing reports were prepared.
Ordering Main to cough up £1,000 in costs and an £85 victim surcharge, Judge Barnes today told him:
I take into account that you have lost your job and cannot work in your chosen sector in future and the impact on your reputation, your family, friends and the public.
The judge said money could not recompense behaviour like this, and that the victim “would like to leave this all behind” and has “moved on”.
Main, whose legal career now lies in tatters, is also subject to a five-year restraining order that prevents him from contacting the victim.
3. The victim under Charge 1, Yeung Sin‑yee, was a 21‑year‑old law student enjoying a night out at the Ore‑no Kappou restaurant in California Tower, 32 D’Aguilar Street, Central on 5 June 2015. She was attending a friend’s birthday party and the whole restaurant had been booked out. The appellant, a 54‑year‑old male, had also been invited. At about 9.10pm, the appellant, who was described as drunk and aggressive, approached Miss Yeung and stroked her bare back two to three times. Miss Yeung became upset and started to cry, at which point the appellant grabbed her wrist and said “Drink with me!”. She asked him to let go and told the appellant that she did not drink. In response, the appellant said, “I am not the one who tells you to drink but my friends do”. The appellant was still holding the victim’s wrist at this time and she was crying. She told the appellant to let go and not to touch her again. The appellant eventually let Miss Yeung go and said “Fuck you! Who do you think you are? Don’t drink with me!” Then the appellant threw a glass of wine over Miss Yeung’s head.
4. The incident was reported by Miss Yeung to the police and they arrived a short time later at which stage the appellant was described as smelling of alcohol, being incoherent and staggering. He was arrested by PC 16734 at about 10.05pm and became emotional. He was escorted from the restaurant by three police officers. A friend was also present to assist because of his emotional state. By the time the group reached the roadside, the appellant was yelling and staggering. He shouted to the police officers, “I am your boss. I am the chairman. You do not need to come to work tomorrow.” He was also heard to say “What is your number? I beat the fuck out of you. (I will) fire you tomorrow.” He then tried to break free and kicked out at PC 16197. He also hit the right side of the crotch of PC 16734 and kicked the other escorting officer PC 6994. In order to subdue the appellant, PC 16734 tried to handcuff him and was hit in the lips and abdomen for his trouble. He was eventually handcuffed but only after he was pressed down onto the pavement. As a result of his behaviour towards the police he was arrested for assault police, at which point he became emotional and struggled with the guarding officer. HKSAR and YEUNG HOI SHAN (楊凱山) HCMA 202/2016
162. It is clear, on MS’s own concession before the magistrate, that it was not until the fifth day of PW1’s testimony that he embarked upon putting his case to her and “taking the witness through various matters that happened on the evening in question based on her answers in-chief”. It seems to us, and we have had difficulty in avoiding the use of hyperbole, that most of the first four days of cross-examination of PW1 were taken up with page after page of obtuse, pointless and irrelevant cross-examination. Counsel’s questions appeared to have no sensible direction or purpose whatsoever other than to badger or bully the witness and prolong her ordeal. It ought to have been obvious to counsel when PW1, a respectable and obviously intelligent woman, complained of her frustration, as well as her feelings of being insulted, by questions of no discernible consequence being repeatedly asked of her, that a more restrained, delicate and sensible approach, which would have been entirely consistent with his instructions, was required. Instead, she was met with an obdurate, relentless and remorseless cross-examination which displayed neither skill, restraint nor sensitivity, and which went on for days on end; despite the valiant efforts of the magistrate to control it.
218. We have arrived at this conclusion with profound dismay because the magistrate’s evaluation of evidence and reasons for convicting the defendant are in themselves unimpeachable, and we are acutely conscious that the defendant is the only beneficiary (albeit indirectly) of his counsel’s antics. Conversely, the unfortunate complainant, who was subjected to counsel’s extraordinary forensic machinations for days on end, had every right to expect that she would be treated respectfully and that justice would be done on the merits of the case according to law. From her perspective, justice has manifestly not been done to her. She could be forgiven for thinking that she has been sorely let down by the legal system; and by the legal profession in particular, which should play an integral and important part in ensuring that the system works properly, fairly and efficiently. 這無恥的大狀在庭上放映受害人在戲院看的那齣由羅拔迪尼路主演的電影"RED LIGHTS"的DVD, 離題萬丈, 受害人很迷惘地爆出這一句使我搖頭爆笑的話:
“It’s annoying. Now it’s not Robert De Niro who indecently assaulted me.”
The gravity of the offence was the respondent’s conduct towards an obviously unconscious and vulnerable woman. The respondent’s conduct fell just short of rape. Clearly, a deterrent sentence was required. (p.20)
Starting point for sentence
In all the circumstances, we are satisfied that the appropriate starting point to be taken for sentence is 4 years’ imprisonment.
The respondent is entitled to a discount from the starting point of ⅓ to reflect his plea of guilty. In addition, we are satisfied that it is appropriate to give the respondent a further discount of 3 months’ imprisonment to reflect the fact that he has performed 136 hours of the 240 hours of Community Service to which he was subject. Finally, given that the respondent, a man of good character, is now to be sent to prison, having been spared that punishment when he was sentenced on 18 October 2016, and having regard to the fact that the offence was committed some 38 months ago and that the respondent was not charged for 15 months after his arrest, we are satisfied that it is appropriate to afford the respondent a further discount of 5 months’ imprisonment.