The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Gary Glitter sentence

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Gary Glitter sentence

Post by ultimaThule on Fri Feb 27, 2015 2:37 pm

Although the sentence handed down today has been referred to on the Operation Fernbridge thread I've created this one as the Judge's sentencing remarks are particularly worthy of note, as is the fact that some of the prison terms imposed will run consecutively.

Imo an appeal is inevitable. In the meantime, I suspect Gadd is not feeling particularly glittery at the thought of an 8 year stretch on the nonce wing before he becomes eligible for parole.  

GARY GLITTER'S CHARGES IN FULL

1. Attempted rape between January 1 and December 31, 1975 - GUILTY - SEVEN YEARS IN PRISON

2. Indecent assault between January and December 31, 1975 - NO VERDICT

3. Indecent assault between January 31 and May 31, 1977 - GUILTY - FOUR YEARS IN PRISON

4. Indecent assault between January 31 and May 31, 1977 - GUILTY - FOUR YEARS IN PRISON

5. Administering a drug in order to facilitate sexual intercourse between January 31 and May 31, 1977 - NOT GUILTY

6. Sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 13 between January 31 and May 31, 1977 - GUILTY - EIGHT YEARS IN PRISON

7. Indecent assault between January 31 and May 31, 1977 - NOT GUILTY

8. Indecent assault between January 31 and May 31, 1977 - NOT GUILTY

9. Indecent assault between October 1, 1979 and December 31, 1980 - GUILTY - 12 MONTHS IN PRISON

10. Indecent assault between October 1, 1979 and December 31, 1980 - GUILTY - 12 MONTHS IN PRISON

'Judge Alistair McCreath began his sentencing remarks by saying: 'The offences for which I must pass sentence today took place many years ago at a time when, in particular in respect of one of them, the maximum sentence was considerably lower than that which is now available and at a time when the sentencing climate was less severe than it now is.

'I must sentence you in accordance with the sentencing regime applicable today, not at the date of the offence. But I am limited to the maximum sentence available at the time of the offence.

'There may be cases where a lack of offending in the meantime, coupled with evidence of positive good character, might offer some mitigation. Yours is not such a case. You have in fact committed offences since those before me today - your convictions of 1998 for downloading indecent images of children. Further I can find no real evidence that you have done anything in the intervening 40 or so years to atone for these crimes.

He then went through Glitter's crimes one by one and explained how the sentences available at the time differ from modern norms, saying: 'As to Count 1, given that the victim was eight years old and you were in a position of trust towards her, the appropriate starting point under the current guidelines would have been 13 years for a full offence of rape but somewhat less given that this was an attempt at rape.

'The maximum sentence available to me on Count 1, however, is one of seven years imprisonment; that was the decision of Parliament in 1956 when the relevant legislation was passed.'

The judge went on to discuss Counts 3 and 4, relating to Glitter's attack on a girl in a hotel room. He said: 'Under the modern guideline, the appropriate starting point would have been sixyears, against a modern maximum of life imprisonment. The maximum sentence, however, for this offence in 1977 and therefore the maximum sentence available to me today is one of five years imprisonment.

'Count 6 is in a different category. This involved full sexual intercourse with a girl of 12. Under the modern law, this would have amounted to an offence of rape of a child under 13. Given the breach of trust involved in this offence and the fact that the incident lasted for an entire night, the starting point would have been 13 years. The maximum sentence for the historic and modern offences is the same, life imprisonment. The prosecution and the defence are both agreed that the sentencing principles which apply in this case do not permit me to pass a life sentence.

'Counts 9 and 10, charged as indecent assaults, have as their modern equivalent the offences of sexual activity with a child. Here again there was breach of trust as well as a significant disparity in age. The maximum sentence available to me for this conduct is twoyears. This is a sufficient penalty, even under the modern guidelines.'

Addressing the psychological damage done by Glitter to his victims, the judge said: 'I have read the impact statements of all three victims. It is clear that in their different ways they were all profoundly affected by your abuse of them. You did all of them real and lasting damage. And you did so for no other reason than to obtain sexual gratification for yourself of a wholly improper kind.'

He then returned to the individual charges: 'Count 1 - this was on any view a truly appalling offence. An eight-year-old child was an overnight guest in your home. You went to the room in which two little girls were sleeping together in a double bed and you made a determined, although ultimately unsuccessful, attempt to rape her... You caused that child deep harm which has persisted throughout her life. It is difficult to overstate the depravity of this dreadful behaviour.

'Counts 3, 4 and 6 - the 12-year-old victim came with her mother to one of your concerts. You invited them both to your hotel and created a situation in which her mother was taken out of your suite of rooms to another place, leaving you with this sexually inexperienced child. All of this happened because and only because of your fame. You kept her in your room all night... She was 12. You were in your 30s. She also has been greatly damaged by this. You gave no thought to the harm you were doing her. Your only thought was for yourself.

'Counts 9 and 10 - the 13-year-old victim of these offences visited your dressing room after a performance. She was left alone with you for a few minutes... She was an extremely vulnerable child for reasons of which I accept you knew nothing. But I’m quite sure that even if you had known it would have made no difference to you. Whether you knew of her vulnerability or not, your abuse of her caused her particular harm.'

The judge dismissed claims by Glitter's lawyer that he should be given credit for his supposed good character: 'It is urged on me that I should recognise and give credit for the fact that when you committed the present offences, you were then of good character. Whilst I recognise the fact, it cannot in the circumstances of this case carry any or any significant weight.

'I acknowledge that you are no longer young - you are soon to reach the age of 71. As your counsel recognises, this cuts both ways. You have had the benefit of living for nearly 40 years unconvicted of these offences.

'I note that in 2011 you sought out professional help to understand your sexual attitudes and behaviour. After two or three months of treatment, you were re-assessed and found to have benefitted from it and to present a lower risk. Hereafter, you were permitted to travel abroad. You were now able to present yourself as having what is described as a "treated profile".

'Whatever changes may have been effected in you by this treatment, they did not include any admission at all on your part of the wrong that you had done, in particular of the offences of which you now stand convicted. That is why I said earlier in these remarks that I find no evidence of atonement on your part.'

When he came to hand down the sentences, Mr McCreath said: 'The offence of attempted rape was so serious as to justify under the old sentencing regime the maximum available sentence. It hardly needs stating that under the modern regime, seven years would be a lenient sentence. But it is all that is available to me. That is the sentence which I pass on Count 1.

'On Counts 3 and 4, the sentences are four years imprisonment. On Count 6 the sentence is one of eight years imprisonment... These sentences will run concurrently with each other but consecutively to the sentence on Count 1.

'On Counts 9 and 10, the sentences are 12 months concurrently on each count but consecutive to the other sentences. The total sentence is, therefore, one of 16 years imprisonment.'

And this despicable piece of lowlife still has fans who want to be in his gang ... Rolling Eyes

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2971695/Paedophile-singer-Gary-Glitter-jailed-16-years-historic-sex-attacks-three-schoolgirls.html



ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gary Glitter sentence

Post by plebgate on Sat Feb 28, 2015 1:39 pm

The Judge deserves a round of applause. clapping1 

40 years without being held accountable is a long time and yet he is still snivelling and looking for a lighter sentence.   I cannot find words to describe this person.

If he appeals I hope the Appeal Court Judges can add on some time to the sentence.

plebgate

Posts : 5440
Reputation : 1155
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gary Glitter sentence

Post by ultimaThule on Sun Mar 01, 2015 9:19 pm

Other than those cases which are referred by the Attorney General on the grounds that the sentence was too lenient, there no provision for the Court of Appeal to increase a sentence as a penalty for an appeal that is without merit, plebgate.

In this particular case I would regard it as a privilege to be be first in the queue to buy His Honour Judge McCreath a drink - not only for his imposition of consecutive terms, but also because he has drawn attention to the ease with which paedophiles and other sexual offenders who are prohibited from travelling abroad can overcome this restricton.

Given his activities in Vietnam and his prison sentence in that country, it beggars belief that this offender was described as having a 'treated profile' which enabled him to present as a lower risk after a mere 2-3 months.  Whoever is running this scheme should know that paedophiles cannot be rehabilitated and that they will always pose a risk to children.

While I generally deplore the compo culture which has afflicted the UK, I sincerely hope that this felon's victims will now proceed to sue him for every penny he's got - and for all of those future pennies which will accrue to him by way of royalties.

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum