Jogging lawyer who flashed schoolgirls struck off

pittabin

^{Put it away: Pittaway's new running gear.}

A senior lawyer who used his daily jog to repeatedly flash schoolgirls has been struck off.

Mark Pittaway was a director of Thursfields Solicitors in the West Midlands when he regularly exposed himself over a three-year period to at least four girls, one of whom told the court he had flashed her more than 30 times.

Pittaway pulled his shorts to one side as he ran past the children while they were on their way to school or waiting at a bus stop.

The solicitor, whose running for charity regularly featured in the press, was charged with five counts of indecent exposure while jogging around the Portland area of Dorset.

He was also his firm’s compliance officer, and reported himself to the SRA in 2021. He informed the regulator that “Last Thursday I was charged with offences, all of which I deny, but which are likely to become public knowledge at some stage whereby both the reputation of my firm and that of the profession might be harmed. They are not fraud or dishonesty related but may attract media attention nonetheless”.

The solicitor claimed to police that if anyone had seen his genitals it was “purely accidental” and a result of him wearing short shorts.

When he was shown CCTV footage he conceded that his genitals were on display, but maintained that he must have been hitching up his shorts to “scratch his groin area”.

Four eyewitnesses gave evidence at his trial. One said that "nearly every day for two years, this man would flash his genitals to me. I was in school. Walking to and from school. lt was horrible. I would go to school scared and frightened of what will happen to me. I thought he would've raped me or done stuff to me. I have never been so scared in my life. lt has degraded me as a woman and I felt targeted. When it first happened I was fourteen years old. I was a child".

A second victim said, "This incident left me feeling so uncomfortable going into school. lt got to the point that I would always make sure I was with someone or get a lift....I would think about the other children who must have seen this. There must have been so many children”.

Convicted of all five charges, Pittaway was given a suspended 12 month sentence and a 12 week curfew between 9pm and 9am.

For a period of ten years he was also prohibited from exercising in a public place unless he wears trousers, or shorts that are at least knee length and have no fly. In addition he was banned from jogging from Monday to Friday 7am-9am and 4.30pm-6.30pm, or at any time within sight of any school premises.

Pittaway agreed to be struck off the Roll and to pay the SRA’s costs of £2,850, having accepted the tribunal’s findings that the misconduct was planned, that he had direct control over his actions, and that he was senior figure and manager within his firm.

LU icon Let top firms and companies ping your app when they like you for a role. Whether or not you're actively looking to move, keep one ear open by downloading LawyerUp on the App Store or Google Play.

Comments

Dropped a bollock there - he’s clearly nuts. Glad to see that he got the sack…

Struck off you say. Lopped off would be a more fitting punishment.

Why on Earth did he get a suspended sentence? This was persistent behaviour over years to multiple victims.

He got a suspended sentence as he’s otherwise a law abiding citizen and his flashing offences have ruined his reputation, ended his career as a lawyer and no doubt adversely affected his closest relationships. That’s a lot of punishment already.

Sending him to jail would achieve little more than what the court process - the provision of the evidence against him - his victims speaking out on the harm done to them - has already achieved.

of course if he reoffends then a jail sentence is inevitable. But he probably will not reoffend.

Now known as Mark Put-it-away...

Disgusting behaviour. The ban on exercising in a public place and wearing shorts is stupid though, makes the courts look daft.

To Ian: none of that should be relevant.

"otherwise a law abiding citizen"

the word "otherwise" doing quite a lot of the work there Ian

+1 for the Lock Him Up school of thought.

He's been convicted of persistent sex offending against minors over a period of at least two years, all premeditated and with no element of intoxication or mistake.

It's absolutely mad that he's avoided a custodial sentence for it.

Yeah, well, er, how can you even be sure that he has a penis to actually flash?

Like, do you know for certain that it wasn't just a, I dunno, a polyurethane prosthetic that he used to make it look like he was flashing his willy?

Wake up sheeple.

Another example of giving the legal profession a bad name.

@Anonymous 21 April 23 09:03

Wearing lycra active wear in public should also require a license.

@11.16 - you're learning, we'll make an open-minded individual out of you yet!

However, in this case there were findings following a criminal trial, not some malicious allegations driven by misandry which are very common in 'sexual harassment' claims.

It doesn't give the legal profession a bad name, only him.

he could have got away with it. The world needs accountability. guilty, or innocent, some people must suffer.

This man deserves a life sentence.

@11.24 - so should bad jokes

I hope he was also put on the sex offenders' register.

Also... I don't see why anyone would think that the sentence makes him unlikely to offend again. Equally likely that he'll continue offending but be cleverer about it.

He was offending on a daily basis at the same time in the same place for four years before he was stopped. You could have set your watch by him. How quickly will he be caught if he deliberately chooses to go out of area, looks for cameras and doesn't return....

Flashing, as we have seen in the various Met police officer cases, is often the first step on a downward ladder of increasingly dangerous offending. He should be on a register and be mandated to receive counselling with follow-ups.

Sarah Everard's murderer (I refuse to use his name) started out as a flasher. His colleagues knew. If his offences had been dealt with properly at the time then Sarah would still be alive.

It's time we stopped sniggering about these offences and started taking them seriously.

Why did these girls never say anything?

or, even worse, why did not someone do something after these girls said something?
If my child was afraid of going to school everything morning I would have noticed.

Anonymous Anonymous 21 April 23 11:22: correct.

This Pittaway fellow deserves a peerage!

Thankfully, false allegations of sexual harassment are very rare.

"Sarah Everard's murderer (I refuse to use his name)"

Good for you. That'll really teach him a lesson.

Very impressive of you to be so bold.

Short shorts in prison - not an ideal look.

It started with a flash.,…

Diabolock it’s really NOT funny.

@14:40 very similar facts in relation to the death of Sabina Nessa. You don't hear her mentioned too often. "One less" is probably the general western response there.

What happens to someone like this? He's struck off, given a non-custodial sentence, his name is in the papers (he's on the Daily Mail website). His career is over. It doesn't say if he's married or in a relationship or has children or not.

I can't help wondering, what does he do do now? Does he move to the other end of the country? What does he do for a reference? Does he have children whose names and details are withheld for their protection?

If he has wife and/or kids then they are more victims I suppose. Whatever the circumstances it's just one hell of a mess. He definitely does not want to google himself right now.

Disgusting

Could our editor check the voting system, please? From my screen it appears I have voted up or down, every single comment here, when in reality I have not. When I check from my work IP, I see the same thing there.

Yes but what about his victims @ 12.00?! He brought this in himself utterly and completely. They (and let’s point out because it is relevant) were innocent school girls trying to catch a bus and had this pervert intrude on their lives and mental health. Which of course was the point. His sense of entitlement to do so is sickening. Hopefully he goes away, ashamed of himself and spends the rest of his life trying to make amends. But these types never do. If they had any empathy with their victims they won’t do it in the first place!

"@14:40 very similar facts in relation to the death of Sabina Nessa. You don't hear her mentioned too often. "One less" is probably the general western response there."

Right on man! Decolonise shroud-waving!

Defund the being more horrified by one incident than another, er, brigade!

North Islington Stands With Dead Women Who Received Less Press Coverage Than Other Dead Women!

Expand the number of flag emojis I can have in my Twitter username!

Backslaps all round. Change we can believe in.

@??? 21 April 23 15:42

We do not know they never said anything. Most likely they did. And from the sorry tale of Jimmy Savile, we can safely assume that all complaints were quietly filed into the cylindrical archive.

@19.18 - why do you want to peer at him for ages?

@ Anonymous 24 April 23 11:13

You give the impression that my enquiry is somehow unreasonable or illegitimate. Why is it wrong to wonder what happens to a sex-offender of this kind whose offences have been made public?

I'm sure you are a very righteous person. Sadly like all such people you lack curiosity.

I know what happens to the girls. They will continue to go to school like the millions of other schoolgirls who have been flashed or received unwanted attention from adult men on their way to and from school.

@ Anonymous 21 April 23 19:43

We live in a world where victims tend to be forgotten and murderers are celebrated. Clearly you think that's right.

I disagree.

A period of silence from you would be welcome.

Anonymous 24 April 23 13:22: peerage, not peer at him for ages! Faceplant doh!

But respectfully,Anon 13.43 they shouldn’t have to! Your view seems to be “oh well they should just have to get on with it” instead of asking where is the support and help for them as victims of a sexual offence (which flashing is - don’t downplay it).

I don’t think your enquiry is unreasonable or illegitimate but I think the focus of it is wrong and demonstrates sympathy for the wrong person. I don’t care what happens to this man, the same way I don’t care what happens to other sex offenders (only that they serve their full sentences and remain properly supervised for the rest of their lives). I care about the victims (that isn’t “righteous”. It’s human.) and so should you. Unless the fact that they are female prevents you from doing so. In which case maybe examine why that is.