SOLICITOR Angus Diggle was convicted at the Old Bailey yesterday of
attempting to rape a lawyer he had taken to a St Andrew's Day dance.
He had denied trying to rape the 25-year-old Scottish solicitor in a
flat in west London last November.
The woman had allowed him to return with her after an evening of
dancing, dining, and drinking champagne and whisky. The idea was to have
coffee and dress for work before they both caught early trains.
But she fell asleep and Diggle got into bed with her and tried to have
sex wearing only the lace cuffs of his Highland dress.
In January this year, Diggle was dismissed from his job with a health
authority after he was fined #50 by Manchester city magistrates for
harassing a woman on a train in August 1992. He pled guilty to
''interfering with the comfort of passengers''.
The Old Bailey was told yesterday, however, that Diggle had no
previous convictions, and later it was explained that some offences
dealt with by magistrates did not form the subject of a police record.
During his trial Diggle, 37, of Bolton, Lancashire, had told the jury
he believed he had received an invitation to have sex with the woman
after, he claimed, she stripped and sat naked on a bed in front of him.
The jury first said that 10 had found him guilty, one had disagreed,
and one was undecided. Judge David Williams sent them back to their
room, saying he could not accept a verdict where one juror was
undecided. Minutes later the jury returned with a 10-2 majority
decision.
Diggle was given bail until his sentence on September 17 at Mold Crown
Court, where the Judge will be sitting.
Judge Williams told him he was ''not to glean any hope'' from the fact
he had been bailed. It was to allow time for psychiatric and
pre-sentence reports.
The court had been told that Diggle and the woman had left the ball at
the Grosvenor House Hotel in a taxi after eight hours of revelry and
eightsome reels.
But what happened at her friends' flat in Earls Court became an issue
which the jury had to decide.
The prosecution alleged that Diggle, a bachelor, was determined to
have a fling with the woman after spending #200 taking her to the ball.
She had told him he could use the couch if he wanted to sleep, then
turned away, took off her clothes, and got into bed, said Mr Andrew
Campbell, prosecuting. They were in the living room, and her friends
were in the bedroom.
The prosecution said that Diggle, wearing only his lace cuffs, his
glasses, and a green condom, tried to have sex as she struggled to get
free. When she managed to escape she ran for help to her friends, an
engaged couple, in the next room. The fiance repeatedly tried to make
Diggle leave, then called police.
Diggle allegedly told the woman's friends: ''This is so ordinary and
you people are so boring -- you obviously did not go to public school.''
In court Diggle said he believed he had received an invitation to have
sex when the woman stripped in front of him.
He undressed and approached her. ''I suddenly realised I had made a
mistake. I do not know what alerted me -- whether she had not put her
arms round me -- it was something.''
He denied he had persisted in physical contact when she resisted.
Miss X, quoted in the Daily Express, said Diggle had laughed after
trying to rape her. ''He thought it was funny and he was laughing after
I managed to push him off,'' she told the newspaper after the case.
Miss X said Diggle had been a ''perfect gentleman'' at the ball and
she could not believe it when he climbed on top of her.
''I just panicked and I knew I had to get him off. I struggled and I
felt as if I had a surge of strength,'' she was quoted as saying. ''I
managed to throw him about five feet because I was so determined that he
was not going to violate my body.''
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article