Baljit Ubhey, Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS London, said:
“We have carefully considered the evidence gathered by the Metropolitan Police Service in relation to allegations concerning Charles Napier, a teacher at the time of the alleged offending between 1968 and 1973.
“Having completed our review, we have concluded there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest for Mr Napier to be charged with 21 offences of indecent assault. These date from 1968 to 1973, and relate to 21 male complainants aged between eight and 13 at the time of the alleged offending and who were pupils at the school where he taught.”
The charges are:
1. One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 11 – 13 between 1968 and 1970
2. One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 11 between 1969 and 1970
3. One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 11 – 12 between 1969 and 1970
4. One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 11 – 13 between 1969 and 1972
5. One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 11 – 12 between 1969 and 1970
6. One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 9 – 11 between 1970 to 1972
7. One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 8 or 9 in 1970
8. One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 9 – 11 between 1969 and 1972
9. One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 9 or 10 between 1969 and 1970
10. One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 10 to 13 between 1969 and 1972
11. One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 13 in 1970
12. One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 9 – 12 between 1969 and 1972
13. One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 8 in 1971
14. One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 11 – 13 between 1969 and 1972
15. One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 8 or 9 – 12 between 1969 and 1972
16. One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 8 – 9 between 1969 and 1970
17. One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 11 – 13 between 1969 and 1971
18. One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 10 – 13 between 1969 and 1972
19. One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 12 in 1971
20. One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 8 – 12 between 1969 and 1973
21. One charge of indecent assault on a boy aged 8 between 1969 and 1970
Ms Ubhey said:
“The decision to prosecute has been taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and Crown Prosecution Service legal guidance on rape and child sexual abuse. We have determined that there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and that a prosecution is in the public interest.
“Mr Napier will appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 2 September 2014.
“May I remind all concerned that Mr Napier has a right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.”
theneedleblog 
Pingback: The Monthly Investigation -November 2016 – The Dark, Hidden History of Child Sexual Abuse within the Diocese of Chichester in East and West Sussex | Gatwick City Times
Pingback: A Dark, Hidden History of Child Sexual Abuse within the Diocese of Chichester in East and West Sussex – The Bell Society
Could there be something even more horrific involving Rotherham sex assault cover ups? Were there sexual activities involving children involving any of those involved in the cover up?
What other horrors have been suppressed by those revolting people who ignored the plight of those children?
It begins to look as though the small fry will feel the full force of the law,
but the real bu**ers will get off!
Was thinking the same when I was reading the article. Another one who may have thought he was protected. There will be some deaths in prison I reckon. Suicides. Particularly amonst the really resentful people who thought that having child molesting in common with powerful people would protect them from jankers bitterly spilling the big fat beans.
In the end it’s just the rich and well connected sticking with the rich and well connected.
That’s about the strength of it.
The CPS statement above suggests it is possible for a case to have sufficient evidence but for a prosection to not be in the Public Interest.
What happens then? A cover-up perhaps?
I think everything that needs to be said about Mr Napier has already been shared online for several years.
Exactly right.