Interesting that the above post from Martin Sigarola appears to have been on Pistonheads some hours ago and was then removed.
MS I don't know where you got your facts from but there are a number of inaccuracies.
Firstly the two sets of allegations were not linked - they were on separate indictments. Had they been linked they would have been on one. The prosecution accepted that there was no link.
I am surprised that you mention the matter concerning a boy at the flying school having said that these matters are in the public domain as this allegation was not proceeded with and, as far as I am aware, no detail was mentioned in open court. Was this reported on your local news? Which news report was this as there were section 39 orders in respect of the case and I believe these remain in force?
Secondly the choir he attended was not "full of children" The evidence presented in court was that the vast majority of the choir were adults. The allegation against Mr Alexander was that he was prohibited from attending a choir, without permission from the police, where there were persons under the age of 16. The evidence presented in court was that there were about four or five female choristers who were aged 15 but close to their 16th birthdays.
Mr Alexander had disclosed his previous conviction to the vicar and the church authorities and they were fully aware of it.
As far as the flying matters are concerned, as you rightly say, Mr Alexander was found not guilty of all matters. However, costs were not awarded against the CAA but from central funds. Although the CAA had been involved in the investigation the prosecution was actually conducted by the CPS. There will be no further hearing regarding costs as these will be dealt with administratively by the Court.
My sister has given a statement to a national newspaper that intends to run a story about Alexander shortly, the subject is about how easy it was for a convicted sex offender to change name by deed poll and to offend again
.
Both the police and the church authorities were aware of his previous offending and his change of name. His change of name had absolutely nothing to do with any of the charges he faced and did nothing to hide his identity from the relevant authorities.
The "offending again" was leaving the UK to go on holiday without obtaining express permission from the police (although I understand that he had written to tell them he was going) and attending a choir where there were persons under the age of 16. He was fined. There were no allegations of further sexual offending. These were technical breaches of an order that in passing sentence the Judge said was far too widely drawn and needed amending.