Ian PaisleyShaw, however, had gone to the RUC but had recieved no help.Shaw also informed two senior figures at the Church who warned her Paisley would “destroy” her if she persisted in her campaign.Shaw’s efforts to engage Paisley lasted a year and a half, after which she left his church in disgust.Belying the distance Paisley alleged he placed between himself and McGrath, Paisley went on to officiate at the wedding of McGrath’s daughter, Elizabeth, on 22 January 1976. It should be stressed that Ian Paisley was not a child abuser. However, his actions were motivated by other factors, none of which can have been benign.Mr. ‘X’Mr. ‘X’ was Roy Garland, who had served in Tara, a paramilitary organisation led by McGrath. As part of his mission to expose McGrath, Roy Garland also informed Brian Gemmell, a conscientious British military intelligence officer about Kincora. The information was passed along the line to Ian Cameron of MI5 who ordered Gemmell to abandon his inquiries. Cameron gave this order because MI5 was blackmailing some of the Kincora abusers and exploiting the heinous behaviour there in other ways.Richard Kerr, the witness who joins all the dotsRichard Kerr is the key figure in appreciating the full extent of the scandal. His horrific experience joins the dots between all of the key figures and developments involved in it.Kerr was born on 12 May 1961, and lived with his family off the Botanic Gardens in Belfast until he was placed into care at Williamstown House (WH) in North Belfast on 16 December, 1966. WH catered for Catholic and Protestant children. Kerr was abused by Eric Witchell from the age of 8, starting one night after Witchell visited his bed.“I was on my side, I had a teddy bear. I was biting into that while he had his hand down my backside and fumbled around”. Full rape commenced later. Years later, Witchell was jailed for abusing other boys at WH.The several appeals posted today are all relevant to the Christian Church. See a list of all of them here at the end of the day – Index of Court Appeals on this blog [2] It is not clear why PS was not named. The case glosses over “entirely consensual” sex with a 15 year old male prostitute. Councillor and member of Methodist Church in Warwickshire Area. Appeal judges appear lenient. Redaction Some court reports have had victims names redacted and some assault details redacted. This is a difficult balance –  normally I would think that  I should not “censor” details but on consultation with various people I have taken the decision to redact. This is mainly to protect victims, their friends and relatives from unnecessary detail and to stop the gratification of those who seek salacious details. In addition to the obvious “victims redaction” to protect victims details, there may also be “assault redaction” across most of the spectrum of abuse. The assaults are left in the charges, but mainly redacted when repeated with reference to the individual. I have also redacted unnecessary detail of assaults. Redaction may obscure sometimes the legal reason for the appeal, but should make no large difference to the vital information for researchers that these documents contain. That vital information is mainly names of the perpetrators, past addresses, institutions where assaults occurred, the actual charges the perpetrators faced, and dates – on which newspapers are pathetically inaccurate and this information enables the links between people and places and abuse at various times to be ascertained. Some transcripts may have been subject to automatic reading software and whilst effort has been made to correct these, the text should not be regarded as definitive.  Common mistakes in reprinting here are that quotation marks are sometimes not correct, replaced by odd symbols. If you think that the balance is not correct or that a particular redaction needs reconsideration, please say. This appeal is unredacted by cathy fox blog Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog [1] Index of Court Appeals on this blog [2] [2003] EWCA Crim 1380 No: 200301162/X3 IN THE COURT OF APPEALCRIMINAL DIVISION Tuesday, 15th April 2003 Lord Justice Clarke Regina v. PS Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) MR S BAILEY appeared on behalf of the APPELLANT JUDGMENT (As Approved by the Court) 15th April 2003 1. MR JUSTICE MORISON: On 2nd December 2002 in the Crown Court at Warwick the appellant appeared for sentence and was sentenced in all to 21 months’ imprisonment for offences relating to male children. He was given a nine month sentence for an indecent assault on a 15 year old boy who was a male prostitute who he had met in public toilets. 2. The appellant was a bus driver and was aware that the particular toilets were used as a pick-up place for homosexual activity. The appellant believed the boy to be over the age of consent. After the entirely consensual sexual encounter took place in the appellant’s home the appellant paid the boy his fee. They met again when the appellant discovered the boy was wearing a curfew tag. There was no sexual event on this occasion, but the boy left apparently taking the appellant’s mobile phone. 3. The appellant went to the police. The young man was interviewed and as a result of what they discovered they executed a search warrant of the appellant’s home and seized numerous items, including photographs and videos depicting young children naked and in some cases participating in sexual acts. Such material was also stored on the appellant’s computer. 4. In relation to this aspect the appellant pleaded guilty to 21 charges of making, that is in the technical sense of downloading, indecent photographs of children. A significant number of them depicted penetrative sex between adult males and male children. The computer showed over 4000 images which contravened the legislation. The sentencing judge dealt with this aspect on the basis that the appellant himself had not taken the photographs and had not distributed any of the downloaded images. He described how he used the images to fuel his sexual fantasies. 5. The sentence of 12 months for this offending was consecutive to the nine months for the first offence, making a total of 21 months’ imprisonment in all. The judge also ordered an extended period of licence for three years on the appellant’s release and he expressed the hope that it would be made a condition of that licence that he should attend an appropriate sex offenders programme. The judge probably had well in mind that with a sentence of that length it was not going to be possible for the appellant to complete such a programme whilst in prison. The judge also made a restraining order under section 5(a) of the Sex Offenders Act 1977, requiring the appellant not to engage in any occupation or engagement of any kind which would be likely to bring him into contact with people under the age of 16 years. The judge said that was an indeterminate order. 6. There is much to be said in mitigation, and it has been said, by Mr Bailey who has represented his client with considerable ability in our view. First of all, the appellant’s previous good character. He was co-operative in his attitude with the police. He pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity. In addition, he has contributed to his local community, both as a councillor and through his Methodist Church. Some people have written in and speak highly of him and his contribution to society. 7. Secondly, the appellant is gay. He has attempted not to give way to his desires and act out his fantasies, and uses his computer access to the internet to fuel and satisfy his desires in his own home. He has not “corrupted” any child himself. The boy with whom he had sexual intimacy was experienced and not a first timer. The boy made no complaint and did not co-operate with the police in bringing the prosecution. The sexual encounter was purely consensual, although money was involved. None of the images downloaded from the web were traded or distributed by the appellant. They were kept for his own use. 8. On the other hand, sexual contact with people of 15 is always serious and as the older man it was his job to make sure that the boy was above the age of consent. His dilemma is that he is attracted to youth and it is difficult for him to have lawful sexual experience of the type which arouses his interest. 9. The access to pornography through the internet is a cancer in our society. Indirectly people like the appellant make a market for these pictures and thus encourage the pornographers to exploit the children. It seems clear from the comprehensive report on this appellant, which the sentencing judge had access to, that the appellant has very little understanding of the harm he does by indulging his fantasies. 10. The process of sentencing involves a balance between the interests of the victim, the public interest and the interests of the offender. The balance is not always easy to strike. Looked at purely from the appellant’s point of view, he has lost his good reputation. There are avenues which will now be denied to him. He has never been to prison before and any prison sentence will bear hard on him. 11. From the victim’s point of view the production of child pornography demeans the children concerned and damages them. Their right to grow up as normal decent people and their right to develop their own sexuality has been stolen from them. They need the court’s protection, and, more generally, the public interest suggests that the revulsion of ordinary decent people to offending of this sort must be reflected by what the court does in the sentencing process. 12. At this time we can only interfere with the sentence if we are satisfied that it is manifestly excessive. 13. Counsel has drawn our attention to the numerous points in mitigation to which we have alluded. He invited the Court to take the view that the two offences could be treated effectively as arising out of one occasion, not meriting a consecutive sentence. He says, in any event, 21 months was unduly harsh in the circumstances. 14. It seems to us that we can adopt a merciful approach to the sentences which the appellant deserves. It seems to us that overall a sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment would be appropriate. We are not persuaded that we ought to fiddle with that figure in order to produce a result that secures the appellant’s immediate release, although we recognise that by reducing the sentence to 15 months he will not in fact remain in prison for very many more days. We do that by quashing the sentence in relation to the first offence of nine months and substitute for it a sentence of three months which will be consecutive to the sentence of 12 months passed in relation to the pornographic pictures, such sentence of 12 months being entirely appropriate having regard to the nature of the offending in that respect. 15. We turn, therefore, to the only other matter, namely was the judge entitled to make a restraining order under section 5(a) of the 1977 Act? The court may make an order under that section if it is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in order to protect the public in general, or any particular members of the public, from serious harm from him. 16. The point that is made on this appeal is that the judge did not say that that was his view, namely that he was satisfied that it was necessary to protect the public in general from this appellant. We recognise that it would have been better had the judge said it in terms, but we are quite satisfied that the judge must have been of that view, and that if he were of that view it was an entirely justifiable view to adopt, having regard to the nature of the offending and the activities of this appellant. Therefore, it seems to us, that the judge was entitled to make an order, and entitled to make it until further order, rather than saying that it was an indeterminate order. So we quash the wording of that order and substitute for it an order that he does not engage in any occupation or engagement of any kind which would be likely to bring him into contact with people under the age of 16 years of age until further order. Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based. The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers. National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups. One in Four [C] Havoca [D]. Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog. Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful. Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J] Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K] Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M] ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N] Links [1] Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/05/23/newspaper-stories-index-timeline/ [2] Index of Court Appeals EWCA on this blog https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/a-timeline-of-court-and-ewca-documentation-on-cathy-fox-blog/ [A] Sanctuary for the Abused http://abusesanctuary.blogspot.co.uk/2006/07/for-survivors-coping-with-triggers-if.html [B] NAPAC http://www.napac.org.uk/ [C] One in Four http://www.oneinfour.org.uk/ [D] Havoca http://www.havoca.org/HAVOCA_home.htm [E] SurvivorsJustice Triggers post http://survivorsjustice.com/2014/02/26/triggers-what-are-they-and-how-do-we-work-through-them/ [F] SurvivorsJustice Blog http://survivorsjustice.com/ [G] Jim Hopper Mindfulness http://www.jimhopper.com/mindfulness/ [H] Jim Hopper Meditation http://www.jimhopper.com/mindfulness/#cultivate [J] 2016 Jan 5 Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma https://hwaairfan.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/an-indigenous-australian-approach-to-healing-trauma/ [K] Survivors UK website for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men https://www.survivorsuk.org/ and twitter https://twitter.com/SurvivorsUK [L] Voicing CSA website – http://voicingcsa.uk/ helps arrange survivors meetings in your area. Voicing CSA supports the IICSA and VSCP and works to help adult survivors of child sexual abuse find their voice [M] A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links https://aprescriptionforme.wordpress.com/help/#emotionalsupport [N] ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal”.  blog – https://shatterboysuk.wordpress.com/ email – shatterboysuk@gmail.com facebook – https://www.facebook.com/shatterboysuk/?fref=ts twitter – @Shatter_Boys_UK This is all written in good faith but if there is anything that needs to be corrected or you wish to write to me please email bailey@cathyfox.33mail.com quoting the article title the truth will out, the truth will shout, the truth will set us free “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” – Edmund Burke “He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers.” Charles Peguy To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards out of men  – Ella  Wheeler Wilcox Every time we act in the face of fear, we dilute it’s power and increase our confidence – via Gary Havener Only the small secrets need to be protected, the large ones are kept secret by public incredulity – Marshall McLuhan   ” data-medium-file=”” data-large-file=”” class=”size-medium wp-image-14284″ src=”https://i2.wp.com/www.villagemagazine.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/kerr4.jpg?resize=300%2C246&ssl=1″ alt=”” width=”300″ height=”246″ srcset=”https://i2.wp.com/www.villagemagazine.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/kerr4.jpg?resize=300%2C246&ssl=1&zoom=2 1.5x” scale=”1.5″ style=”background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 5px 5px 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; height: auto;”>Richard KerrKerr has informed Village that Witchell became the head of WH “for the Catholics’ side in early 1975 while I was there. Before that he was visiting it and from my memory he was working part-time. He was living in Liverpool at a church, but had his own place in Belfast that he would go to when he would visit Williamson House”. Witchell, he adds, arranged “for me to meet him in the Liverpool at a church; then he abused me there. I was still in care, living in Belfast.But please realise there were others who came to WH who abused us”. One of the “others” who abused the children at WH was Dr Morris Fraser. Both Witchell and Fraser are alive and there is no sign yet that either of them will ever be prosecuted by the PSNI for the abuse of Kerr.“My school records from Mount Vernon”, Kerr has also told Village, “were destroyed because it contained information indicating that I was being abused at Williamson House. The staff at the school suspected I was being abused but, when asked, I would not answer their questions because I was afraid of my abusers”.Her Majesty’s child brothel at KincoraIn 1975 Kerr was sent to Kincora. He was only 14 and became its youngest resident. He was forced to have sex with Joseph Mains, the Warden of Kincora, in the shed at the back of the home which “had a chair and a mattress in it, that’s about all”, and in a hotel and a guesthouse. Witchell continued to abuse him. “Eric was a good friend of Mains” and they were often on the phone together. “Eric would call Mains and I would speak to him on the phone when I was in Kincora and [he would ask] me to come over to Williamson House; then he would abuse me. His room was on the top floor”. Kerr had no choice but to submit to Witchell if he wanted to see his sister at WH.At the age of 15 Kerr was taken to the Whip and Saddle bar at the Europa Hotel by Mains and others who supplied him to men staying at the hotel.The deeply flawed conclusion of the 2017 Hart Report was that abuse at Kincora was an isolated aberration limited to a handful of miscreants on its staff. Significantly, while Kerr was at Kincora, he was spirited out of Ireland to Manchester, London and elsewhere. He has supplied Village with a photograph taken of him aged 16 in London. This photograph alone sinks the central finding of the Hart Report.Witchell introduced him to two men who exploited him in Manchester. Abuse took place at the Rembrandt Hotel and elsewhere. The two men “had other boys living with them. They took photographs of us tied up with our clothes off to put in boys’ magazines. They said they were sending some to Amsterdam”.[2003] EWCA Crim 1380 No: 200301162/X3 IN THE COURT OF APPEALCRIMINAL DIVISION Tuesday, 15th April 2003 Lord Justice Clarke Regina v. P.s. Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) MR S BAILEY appeared on behalf of the APPELLANT JUDGMENT (As Approved by the Court) [2003] EWCA Crim 1380 2 15th April 2003 1. MR JUSTICE MORISON: On 2nd December 2002 in the Crown Court at Warwick the appellant appeared for sentence and was sentenced in all to 21 months’ imprisonment for offences relating to male children. He was given a nine month sentence for an indecent assault on a 15 year old boy who was a male prostitute who he had met in public toilets. 2. The appellant was a bus driver and was aware that the particular toilets were used as a pick-up place for homosexual activity. The appellant believed the boy to be over the age of consent. After the entirely consensual sexual encounter took place in the appellant’s home the appellant paid the boy his fee. They met again when the appellant discovered the boy was wearing a curfew tag. There was no sexual event on this occasion, but the boy left apparently taking the appellant’s mobile phone. 3. The appellant went to the police. The young man was interviewed and as a result of what they discovered they executed a search warrant of the appellant’s home and seized numerous items, including photographs and videos depicting young children naked and in some cases participating in sexual acts. Such material was also stored on the appellant’s computer. 4. In relation to this aspect the appellant pleaded guilty to 21 charges of making, that is in the technical sense of downloading, indecent photographs of children. A significant number of them depicted penetrative sex between adult males and male children. The computer showed over 4000 images which contravened the legislation. The sentencing judge dealt with this aspect on the basis that the appellant himself had not taken the photographs and had not distributed any of the downloaded images. He described how he used the images to fuel his sexual fantasies. 5. The sentence of 12 months for this offending was consecutive to the nine months for the first offence, making a total of 21 months’ imprisonment in all. The judge also ordered an extended period of licence for three years on the appellant’s release and he expressed the hope that it would be made a condition of that licence that he should attend an appropriate sex offenders programme. The judge probably had well in mind that with a sentence of that length it was not going to be possible for the appellant to complete such a programme whilst in prison. The judge also made a restraining order under section 5(a) of the Sex Offenders Act 1977, requiring the appellant not to engage in any occupation or engagement of any kind which would be likely to bring him into contact with people under the age of 16 years. The judge said that was an indeterminate order. 6. There is much to be said in mitigation, and it has been said, by Mr Bailey who has represented his client with considerable ability in our view. First of all, the appellant’s previous good character. He was co-operative in his attitude with the police. He pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity. In addition, he has contributed to his local community, both as a councillor and through his Methodist Church. Some people have written in and speak highly of him and his contribution to society. 7. Secondly, the appellant is gay. He has attempted not to give way to his desires and act out his fantasies, and uses his computer access to the internet to fuel and satisfy his desires in his own home. He has not “corrupted” any child himself. The boy with whom he had sexual intimacy was experienced and not a first timer. The boy made no complaint and did not co-operate with the police in bringing the prosecution. The sexual encounter was purely consensual, although money was involved. None of the images downloaded from the web were traded or distributed by the appellant. They were kept for his own use. [2003] EWCA Crim 1380 3 8. On the other hand, sexual contact with people of 15 is always serious and as the older man it was his job to make sure that the boy was above the age of consent. His dilemma is that he is attracted to youth and it is difficult for him to have lawful sexual experience of the type which arouses his interest. 9. The access to pornography through the internet is a cancer in our society. Indirectly people like the appellant make a market for these pictures and thus encourage the pornographers to exploit the children. It seems clear from the comprehensive report on this appellant, which the sentencing judge had access to, that the appellant has very little understanding of the harm he does by indulging his fantasies. 10. The process of sentencing involves a balance between the interests of the victim, the public interest and the interests of the offender. The balance is not always easy to strike. Looked at purely from the appellant’s point of view, he has lost his good reputation. There are avenues which will now be denied to him. He has never been to prison before and any prison sentence will bear hard on him. 11. From the victim’s point of view the production of child pornography demeans the children concerned and damages them. Their right to grow up as normal decent people and their right to develop their own sexuality has been stolen from them. They need the court’s protection, and, more generally, the public interest suggests that the revulsion of ordinary decent people to offending of this sort must be reflected by what the court does in the sentencing process. 12. At this time we can only interfere with the sentence if we are satisfied that it is manifestly excessive. 13. Counsel has drawn our attention to the numerous points in mitigation to which we have alluded. He invited the Court to take the view that the two offences could be treated effectively as arising out of one occasion, not meriting a consecutive sentence. He says, in any event, 21 months was unduly harsh in the circumstances. 14. It seems to us that we can adopt a merciful approach to the sentences which the appellant deserves. It seems to us that overall a sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment would be appropriate. We are not persuaded that we ought to fiddle with that figure in order to produce a result that secures the appellant’s immediate release, although we recognise that by reducing the sentence to 15 months he will not in fact remain in prison for very many more days. We do that by quashing the sentence in relation to the first offence of nine months and substitute for it a sentence of three months which will be consecutive to the sentence of 12 months passed in relation to the pornographic pictures, such sentence of 12 months being entirely appropriate having regard to the nature of the offending in that respect. 15. We turn, therefore, to the only other matter, namely was the judge entitled to make a restraining order under section 5(a) of the 1977 Act? The court may make an order under that section if it is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in order to protect the public in general, or any particular members of the public, from serious harm from him. 16. The point that is made on this appeal is that the judge did not say that that was his view, namely that he was satisfied that it was necessary to protect the public in general from this appellant. We recognise that it would have been better had the judge said it in terms, but we are quite satisfied that the judge must have been of that view, and that if he were of that view it was an entirely justifiable view to adopt, having regard to the nature of the offending and the activities of this appellant. Therefore, it seems to us, that the judge was entitled to make an order, and entitled to make it until further order, rather than saying that it was an [2003] EWCA Crim 1380 4 indeterminate order. So we quash the wording of that order and substitute for it an order that he does not engage in any occupation or engagement of any kind which would be likely to bring him into contact with people under the age of 16 years of age until further order. 17. That form of order is appropriate where the judge has in mind a restraint that it will continue for a long period of time. It recognises that there can be applications made to the court by the appellant, or, in appropriate circumstances, by the police to vary it. Therefore, if, for example, as a result of attending the sex offenders programme it becomes plain that this appellant is no longer a threat to society, then, of course, the order could be modified. To that extent the appeal is allowed. ” data-medium-file=”” data-large-file=”” class=”size-medium wp-image-14285″ src=”https://i2.wp.com/www.villagemagazine.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/kerr3.jpg?resize=273%2C300&ssl=1″ alt=”” width=”273″ height=”300″ srcset=”https://i2.wp.com/www.villagemagazine.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/kerr3.jpg?resize=273%2C300&ssl=1&zoom=2 1.5x” scale=”1.5″ style=”background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 5px 5px 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; height: auto;”>Richard Kerr in England aged 16.The Whip and Saddle Bar at the Europa HotelIn June 1977, when he was 16, Joe Mains secured a job for Kerr at the Europa Hotel. He was rostered to work in the “late evening”. This was an excuse to make him available to abusers, many of whom congregated at the Whip and Saddle bar.Harper Brown, the manager of the Europa Hotel, 1971-84, was a “very, very good friend” of Mains’ and Kerr has no doubt he “knew what was going on there”. Kerr’s employment lasted until October 1977.“I met Englishmen and Americans at the Europa Hotel where I was abused. Some of these men arranged for me to meet them in England. I was also taken to Larne many times where I was abused at the Harbour Inn Hotel. I was also transported to Scotland from Larne and taken to the North of England and London. This happened quite a bit. I was taken there many times by men who were in the Orange Order. They would come up to Kincora. Two of these men did not abuse me but would take me to meet men that did”. Kerr knew they were Orangemen from discussions with Mains. “When I was in Mains’ room in the late evening and he was drinking he would tell me about his membership in the B Specials, and also about the men he knew in the Orange Order. I met one of these men before Kincora and I met the other two when they came to Kincora. They would take me out to places and they would become intoxicated and would have conversations about the Orange Order. I remember one of them said that he was a member of the club behind the West Circular Road. Mains would write down a false address of where I had been to cover-up where they would take me”.Joe Mains and Sir Maurice Oldfield of MI6In 1980 MI5 (which is attached to the British Home Office) carried out an inquiry into the conduct of the former Chief of MI6, Sir Maurice Oldfield, 1973-78. MI6 is attached to the Foreign Office. This happened because Oldfield had been caught lying about his homosexuality. Oldfield was also an abuser of ‘rent boys’, underage male prostitutes. MI6 reviewed their files relating to the matter in 2011. According to the Hart Report, “Officer G” of MI6 “examined four ring binders with material relating to Sir Maurice Oldfield, including the 1980 MI5 investigation”.[2003] EWCA Crim 1380 No: 200301162/X3 IN THE COURT OF APPEALCRIMINAL DIVISION Tuesday, 15th April 2003 Lord Justice Clarke Regina v. P.s. Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited 190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) MR S BAILEY appeared on behalf of the APPELLANT JUDGMENT (As Approved by the Court) [2003] EWCA Crim 1380 2 15th April 2003 1. MR JUSTICE MORISON: On 2nd December 2002 in the Crown Court at Warwick the appellant appeared for sentence and was sentenced in all to 21 months’ imprisonment for offences relating to male children. He was given a nine month sentence for an indecent assault on a 15 year old boy who was a male prostitute who he had met in public toilets. 2. The appellant was a bus driver and was aware that the particular toilets were used as a pick-up place for homosexual activity. The appellant believed the boy to be over the age of consent. After the entirely consensual sexual encounter took place in the appellant’s home the appellant paid the boy his fee. They met again when the appellant discovered the boy was wearing a curfew tag. There was no sexual event on this occasion, but the boy left apparently taking the appellant’s mobile phone. 3. The appellant went to the police. The young man was interviewed and as a result of what they discovered they executed a search warrant of the appellant’s home and seized numerous items, including photographs and videos depicting young children naked and in some cases participating in sexual acts. Such material was also stored on the appellant’s computer. 4. In relation to this aspect the appellant pleaded guilty to 21 charges of making, that is in the technical sense of downloading, indecent photographs of children. A significant number of them depicted penetrative sex between adult males and male children. The computer showed over 4000 images which contravened the legislation. The sentencing judge dealt with this aspect on the basis that the appellant himself had not taken the photographs and had not distributed any of the downloaded images. He described how he used the images to fuel his sexual fantasies. 5. The sentence of 12 months for this offending was consecutive to the nine months for the first offence, making a total of 21 months’ imprisonment in all. The judge also ordered an extended period of licence for three years on the appellant’s release and he expressed the hope that it would be made a condition of that licence that he should attend an appropriate sex offenders programme. The judge probably had well in mind that with a sentence of that length it was not going to be possible for the appellant to complete such a programme whilst in prison. The judge also made a restraining order under section 5(a) of the Sex Offenders Act 1977, requiring the appellant not to engage in any occupation or engagement of any kind which would be likely to bring him into contact with people under the age of 16 years. The judge said that was an indeterminate order. 6. There is much to be said in mitigation, and it has been said, by Mr Bailey who has represented his client with considerable ability in our view. First of all, the appellant’s previous good character. He was co-operative in his attitude with the police. He pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity. In addition, he has contributed to his local community, both as a councillor and through his Methodist Church. Some people have written in and speak highly of him and his contribution to society. 7. Secondly, the appellant is gay. He has attempted not to give way to his desires and act out his fantasies, and uses his computer access to the internet to fuel and satisfy his desires in his own home. He has not “corrupted” any child himself. The boy with whom he had sexual intimacy was experienced and not a first timer. The boy made no complaint and did not co-operate with the police in bringing the prosecution. The sexual encounter was purely consensual, although money was involved. None of the images downloaded from the web were traded or distributed by the appellant. They were kept for his own use. [2003] EWCA Crim 1380 3 8. On the other hand, sexual contact with people of 15 is always serious and as the older man it was his job to make sure that the boy was above the age of consent. His dilemma is that he is attracted to youth and it is difficult for him to have lawful sexual experience of the type which arouses his interest. 9. The access to pornography through the internet is a cancer in our society. Indirectly people like the appellant make a market for these pictures and thus encourage the pornographers to exploit the children. It seems clear from the comprehensive report on this appellant, which the sentencing judge had access to, that the appellant has very little understanding of the harm he does by indulging his fantasies. 10. The process of sentencing involves a balance between the interests of the victim, the public interest and the interests of the offender. The balance is not always easy to strike. Looked at purely from the appellant’s point of view, he has lost his good reputation. There are avenues which will now be denied to him. He has never been to prison before and any prison sentence will bear hard on him. 11. From the victim’s point of view the production of child pornography demeans the children concerned and damages them. Their right to grow up as normal decent people and their right to develop their own sexuality has been stolen from them. They need the court’s protection, and, more generally, the public interest suggests that the revulsion of ordinary decent people to offending of this sort must be reflected by what the court does in the sentencing process. 12. At this time we can only interfere with the sentence if we are satisfied that it is manifestly excessive. 13. Counsel has drawn our attention to the numerous points in mitigation to which we have alluded. He invited the Court to take the view that the two offences could be treated effectively as arising out of one occasion, not meriting a consecutive sentence. He says, in any event, 21 months was unduly harsh in the circumstances. 14. It seems to us that we can adopt a merciful approach to the sentences which the appellant deserves. It seems to us that overall a sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment would be appropriate. We are not persuaded that we ought to fiddle with that figure in order to produce a result that secures the appellant’s immediate release, although we recognise that by reducing the sentence to 15 months he will not in fact remain in prison for very many more days. We do that by quashing the sentence in relation to the first offence of nine months and substitute for it a sentence of three months which will be consecutive to the sentence of 12 months passed in relation to the pornographic pictures, such sentence of 12 months being entirely appropriate having regard to the nature of the offending in that respect. 15. We turn, therefore, to the only other matter, namely was the judge entitled to make a restraining order under section 5(a) of the 1977 Act? The court may make an order under that section if it is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in order to protect the public in general, or any particular members of the public, from serious harm from him. 16. The point that is made on this appeal is that the judge did not say that that was his view, namely that he was satisfied that it was necessary to protect the public in general from this appellant. We recognise that it would have been better had the judge said it in terms, but we are quite satisfied that the judge must have been of that view, and that if he were of that view it was an entirely justifiable view to adopt, having regard to the nature of the offending and the activities of this appellant. Therefore, it seems to us, that the judge was entitled to make an order, and entitled to make it until further order, rather than saying that it was an [2003] EWCA Crim 1380 4 indeterminate order. So we quash the wording of that order and substitute for it an order that he does not engage in any occupation or engagement of any kind which would be likely to bring him into contact with people under the age of 16 years of age until further order. 17. That form of order is appropriate where the judge has in mind a restraint that it will continue for a long period of time. It recognises that there can be applications made to the court by the appellant, or, in appropriate circumstances, by the police to vary it. Therefore, if, for example, as a result of attending the sex offenders programme it becomes plain that this appellant is no longer a threat to society, then, of course, the order could be modified. To that extent the appeal is allowed. ” data-medium-file=”” data-large-file=”” class=”size-medium wp-image-14286″ src=”https://i2.wp.com/www.villagemagazine.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/mains.jpg?resize=300%2C140&ssl=1″ alt=”” width=”300″ height=”140″ srcset=”https://i2.wp.com/www.villagemagazine.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/mains.jpg?resize=300%2C140&ssl=1&zoom=2 1.5x” scale=”1.5″ style=”background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 5px 5px 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; height: auto;”>Joe Mains, warden of KincoraOfficer G proceeded to describe a “relationship” Oldfield had “had with Kincora boys’ home (KBH) in Belfast”. Oldfield was linked to Kincora “through his friendship with the KBH Head”. Hart concluded that this was not evidence of MI6 involvement in Kincora because Officer G had made a mistake and was apparently merely referring to allegations about a relationship. However, neither MI6 nor the Hart Report quoted a single contemporaneous report alleging a friendship between Oldfield and Joseph Mains, the only man who fits the description of “KBH Head”. Indeed, Village can find no trace anywhere of such a report, nor one about a friendship with any of the other staff members at Kincora.Hart failureThere is an error at paragraph 607 of Chapter 29 of the Hart Report which was published in 2017 where it is stated that: “As we have explained, Richard Kerr has alleged that he was sexually abused by Sir Maurice Oldfield”. This is not accurate. Indeed, at paragraph 159 of Chapter 26 of the Report, the following appears: “Kerr did not know at the time who Oldfield was, he says, and does not suggest that he abused Kincora boys”.Mains makes trouble with the RUC vanishKerr came to the attention of the police in October 1977 over an incident involving a car. He had been in the company of some older men who had left it behind, possibly after it had suffered damage to a bumper. After they departed, Kerr was picked up by the RUC. An investigation into the events of that night threatened to unravel the vice ring. “I was taken to the police station in October 1977. They allowed me to privately speak to Joseph Mains but the police officers were not in the same room. Joseph Mains told me as long as I kept my mouth quiet about what was going on, he would get me out of the situation I was in. There was a statement that was meant to be signed; I could not read so if I signed the statement, I did not know what I was signing. Joseph Mains ended up signing the statement as well”.The statement Kerr signed made him appear a full year older than he was. Mains knew Kerr’s date of birth perfectly well, as of course did Kerr. Kerr believes “they were trying to cover-up by saying I was the driver of the car but it was actually the older men. I was 16, and back then you could only drive when you were 17”.The Chairman of Belfast Corporation Welfare CommitteeTwo of Richard Kerr’s social workers became aware of what was going on and tried to get the authorities in Belfast to intervene but they met a blank wall because of abusers like Joshua Cardwell. He was Chairman of Belfast Corporation’s Welfare Committee which was responsible for Kincora. He was also a friend of Mains. Another key figure was a legal official who helped suppress the scandal, also an associate of Mains.Kerr knew Cardwell as “Joseph” Cardwell and recalls that he wore a “funny” hat and drove a blue minivan. He does not believe that he “owned the minivan but one was provided for him and others as transportation for outings out of Kincora”. Cardwell took his victims to the Adelphi Hotel in Portrush. Kerr recalls the “evening bar” was “down the stairs back then”. He was plied with alcohol by abusers, there.Cardwell committed suicide in March 1982 after being interviewed by the RUC about Kincora.The several appeals posted today are all relevant to the Christian Church. See a list of all of them here at the end of the day – Index of Court Appeals on this blog [2] This appeal was by a Roman Catholic Priest Anthony John McCallen, Chaplain of St Anthony’s, Beverley Road, Kingston upon Hull. Indecent assaults and indecent images. Redaction Some court reports have had victims names redacted and some assault details redacted. This is a difficult balance –  normally I would think that  I should not “censor” details but on consultation with various people I have taken the decision to redact. This is mainly to protect victims, their friends and relatives from unnecessary detail and to stop the gratification of those who seek salacious details. In addition to the obvious “victims redaction” to protect victims details, there may also be “assault redaction” across most of the spectrum of abuse. The assaults are left in the charges, but mainly redacted when repeated with reference to the individual. I have also redacted unnecessary detail of assaults. Redaction may obscure sometimes the legal reason for the appeal, but should make no large difference to the vital information for researchers that these documents contain. That vital information is mainly names of the perpetrators, past addresses, institutions where assaults occurred, the actual charges the perpetrators faced, and dates – on which newspapers are pathetically inaccurate and this information enables the links between people and places and abuse at various times to be ascertained. Some transcripts may have been subject to automatic reading software and whilst effort has been made to correct these, the text should not be regarded as definitive.  Common mistakes in reprinting here are that quotation marks are sometimes not correct, replaced by odd symbols. If you think that the balance is not correct or that a particular redaction needs reconsideration, please say. This appeal is unredacted by cathy fox blog Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog [1] Index of Court Appeals on this blog [2] [1993] EWCA Crim J1124-6 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION No. 93/3502/X3 Royal Courts of Justice The Strand London WC2 Wednesday 24 November 1993 Before: The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Taylor of Gosforth) Mr Justice Owen and Mr Justice Latham Regina v. Anthony John McCallen MR CARTWRIGHT appeared on behalf of THE APPELLANT Computer Aided Transcription by John Larking, Chancery House, Chancery Lane, London WC2 Telephone 071–404 7464 (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) JUDGMENT (As Approved) Wednesday 24 November 1993 THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: Mr Justice Latham will give the judgment of the Court. MR JUSTICE LATHAM: After pleading not guilty at the plea and directions hearing on 25 January 1993 the appellant pleaded guilty on 18 March 1993 to one offence of being knowingly concerned in the importation of an indecent video; six offences of taking indecent photographs of young boys; and finally, two offences of indecent assault. So far as the importation of the video was concerned he was sentenced to six months imprisonment; for the indecent photographs he was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment concurrent with each other and concurrent with the six months imposed for the video offence; and for the offences of indecent assault he was sentenced to three-and-a-half years imprisonment concurrently on each of those two counts and concurrently with the other sentences, making a total of three-and-a-half-years imprisonment. It is against that sentence that he now appeals with the leave of the Single Judge. The appellant is 47 years of age and is a Roman Catholic priest. At the time he was the Chaplain of St Anthony’s, Beverley Road, Kingston upon Hull. The offences came to light in the following circumstances. Customs and Excise investigators followed an indecent video which had been imported from Germany. It was collected by the appellant. Although he sought in the first instance to deny it was for him, he was subsequently constrained to admit it. A search warrant was obtained for the presbytery in Kingston upon Hull in which he lived, and a house, 4 Paradise Road on Holy Island, Northumberland. The latter was an address to which the appellant would take parties of young boys from his parish for holiday weekends, or even weeks. Investigators found in those addresses “literally thousands of photographs and articles of an indecent nature”, together with video tapes and drawings. It was clear that the appellant was obsessed by young boys. Amongst the material seized were narratives written by him of a highly explicit nature involving sexual activity with young boys. So far as the video is concerned it is right to say that it was an indecent video; it was not a pornographic video and it did not display any sexual activity. The majority of the indecent photographs were of young boys who had come with him to 4 Paradise Road. They were of the boys in the shower at that address. He had so arranged things that from outside the door he could surreptitiously photograph the boys in the bathroom. The photographs in question appear in the main to be simple nude photographs, but there are a few in which it appears that the boy is masturbating. The indecent assault charges also arise out of photographs. The evidence upon which the two counts were laid consisted of the photographs. The first is of a boy standing naked against the appellant, who is dressed in a track suit, and who has his hand on the bare cheeks of the boy’s backside. The second is a photograph showing the appellant on a bed in a state of undress, with a boy wearing nothing but underpants lying across him. Neither photograph shows any act of gross indecency. Only one statement from one of the boys was referred to by the prosecution in the opening of the facts to the Court below. In that statement it was said: “Father McCallen (that is the appellant) always encouraged us to be ourselves. This included swearing and engaging in pranks with Father McCallen. Father McCallen would put his hand down my trousers and feel my naked backside, putting his hands in the crevice of my anus. I did not see anything wrong in this at the time as I trusted Father McCallen as a friend and I considered such actions to be part of playing around. Father McCallen also rubbed his beard on my backside and face, and also smacked my backside. Again I saw nothing wrong with this.” Although there was no sexual activity between the appellant and any of the boys, the evidence suggests that the way in which the appellant behaved towards them has led at least one boy to be confused as to the real nature of the indecency that was being perpetrated. In these circumstances it was inevitable that the judge would conclude —and rightly —that what happened was a very serious abuse. It was an abuse of the trust of both boys and their parents, bearing in mind the position that the appellant held in relation to them as their priest. It is clear that what he did has led to, at the very least, some concern as to the extent to which the boys have developed a proper sense of what is right and wrong in the area of indecency. It is undoubtedly sad that the appellant should come before the Court in these circumstances, because it would appear that until these matters came to light he was a well-respected man who had served his community well. But the dark side of his nature, which emerged in the form of this erotic obsession, is one which has clearly caused great anguish to those parishioners with whom he lived and worked. We have before us reports from Dr Spencer, a psychiatrist from Oxfordshire, a Dr Livingstone, a psychiatrist working at the therapeutic rehabilitation centre run by the Catholic church; and a pre-sentence report from Miss Carey. All those reports make it clear that the appellant is in fact a deeply disturbed man and requires substantial help if he is to overcome his obsession. It is worrying to see that certainly at one time he was seeking to minimise his part by to some extent blaming the boys. One can see that from the reports. On the other hand, it is right to say that Dr Spencer’s report makes it clear that treatment is not only necessary but has some prospect of success. He has stated that the appropriate treatment is unlikely to be available in prison and he asserts —and counsel on behalf of the appellant seeks to support this assertion —that the right course is to make an order today which will allow that treatment to take place forthwith. However, there are other considerations to which we have already referred. The abuse of trust rendered this a most serious case. In the circumstances there is no alternative but to say that a prison sentence was inevitable. However, although this was persistent behaviour over a substantial period of time, there was no more in terms of incident assault than touching. There was no gross indecency. In those circumstances we consider that a sentence of three-and-a-half years imprisonment for these indecent assaults was too long, and we propose to reduce that sentence to one of two years imprisonment. As far as the taking of the indecent photographs is concerned, we again consider that the sentence of 18 months imprisonment was too long and should be reduced to 12. All those sentences will remain, as they were in the first instance, concurrent sentences, so that the total will be one of two years imprisonment. We wish to say this. We clearly accept that this man needs help. There is no reason why he should not obtain some help in prison, but more importantly there is no reason why he should not seek and obtain help appropriate to his problems once he is released from prison. We encourage him to do so. To the extent we have indicated this appeal is allowed. Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based. The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers. National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups. One in Four [C] Havoca [D]. Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog. Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful. Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J] Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K] Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M] ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N] Links [1] Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/05/23/newspaper-stories-index-timeline/ [2] Index of Court Appeals EWCA on this blog https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/a-timeline-of-court-and-ewca-documentation-on-cathy-fox-blog/ [A] Sanctuary for the Abused http://abusesanctuary.blogspot.co.uk/2006/07/for-survivors-coping-with-triggers-if.html [B] NAPAC http://www.napac.org.uk/ [C] One in Four http://www.oneinfour.org.uk/ [D] Havoca http://www.havoca.org/HAVOCA_home.htm [E] SurvivorsJustice Triggers post http://survivorsjustice.com/2014/02/26/triggers-what-are-they-and-how-do-we-work-through-them/ [F] SurvivorsJustice Blog http://survivorsjustice.com/ [G] Jim Hopper Mindfulness http://www.jimhopper.com/mindfulness/ [H] Jim Hopper Meditation http://www.jimhopper.com/mindfulness/#cultivate [J] 2016 Jan 5 Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma https://hwaairfan.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/an-indigenous-australian-approach-to-healing-trauma/ [K] Survivors UK website for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men https://www.survivorsuk.org/ and twitter https://twitter.com/SurvivorsUK [L] Voicing CSA website – http://voicingcsa.uk/ helps arrange survivors meetings in your area. Voicing CSA supports the IICSA and VSCP and works to help adult survivors of child sexual abuse find their voice [M] A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links https://aprescriptionforme.wordpress.com/help/#emotionalsupport [N] ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal”.  blog – https://shatterboysuk.wordpress.com/ email – shatterboysuk@gmail.com facebook – https://www.facebook.com/shatterboysuk/?fref=ts twitter – @Shatter_Boys_UK This is all written in good faith but if there is anything that needs to be corrected or you wish to write to me please email mccallen@cathyfox.33mail.com quoting the article title the truth will out, the truth will shout, the truth will set us free “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” – Edmund Burke “He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers.” Charles Peguy To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards out of men  – Ella  Wheeler Wilcox Every time we act in the face of fear, we dilute it’s power and increase our confidence – via Gary Havener Only the small secrets need to be protected, the large ones are kept secret by public incredulity – Marshall McLuhan ” data-medium-file=”” data-large-file=”” class=” wp-image-14287″ src=”https://i2.wp.com/www.villagemagazine.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/mckeague.jpg?resize=420%2C235&ssl=1″ alt=”” width=”420″ height=”235″ srcset=”https://i2.wp.com/www.villagemagazine.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/mckeague.jpg?resize=420%2C235&ssl=1&zoom=2 1.5x” scale=”1.5″ style=”background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 5px 5px 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 622px;”>John Dunlop McKeagueThe sadistic paramilitary serial killerThe Park Avenue Hotel was another venue of abuse for Kerr. Mains “went there a lot”, according to Kerr. RUC men frequented it too, he recalls. Significantly, Kerr has revealed that “John McKeague and other men” were patrons too. McKeague’s group would occupy the “red seats in the bar area”. Kerr would be sent to a room to await abuse.McKeague was born in 1930, and originally hailed from Bushmills, County Antrim. He came to Belfast after his parents, Isabella and Thomas, moved him and his sisters there from Portrush where they had run a guesthouse.Over time McKeague became a sadistic sectarian serial killer, with a penchant for torturing victims before finishing them off. He was also obsessed by the Occult, and particularly by one of its practitioners, Evan Frederick Moran, the second Viscount Tredegar. Tredegar, who often visited Ireland, was even reputed to have been an enthusiastic and willing plaything for paedophiles at Buckingham Palace while serving there as a pageboy. Tredegar visited Lord Louis Mountbatten in Classiebawn, County Donegal, during some of his yachting holidays. Gemma O’Doherty speculates as to Mountbatten’s implication in paedophile rings, elsewhere in this edition. The renowned long-serving-BBC journalist and author Martin Dillon has written that McKeague was “lean, sleazy and snake-like, his eyes slightly sunken. When he spoke, the menace was wrapped in slyness but there was no missing his capacity for sadism”.McKeague would become close to another UVF man, Lenny Murphy, who later achieved infamy as the leader of the Shankill Butchers.MI5 makes a partial admission about the recruitment of John McKeagueBrian Gemmell, the conscientious British military intelligence officer mentioned earlier, attended a meeting with MI5 officers in a hotel at Buckingham Palace Road, London, in the mid- 1970s where he was told MI5 possessed a compromising film of McKeague engaged in homosexual acts. The meeting discussed the possibility of recruiting McKeague through blackmail. If the “compromising film” MI5 had was not shot at the Park Avenue Hotel, it means MI5 must have had McKeague under surveillance elsewhere.MI5 acknowledged to the Hart Inquiry that a meeting had indeed taken place and that Gemmell had been at it. They even provided a date: 10 May 1976. MI5 also conceded that a suggestion had been made to blackmail McKeague. Another meeting took place on 7 September 1976. MI5 sought to place the focus firmly on London, not Belfast. It told Hart that “one MI5 officer did put forward an operational proposal (which was never endorsed) which involved using McKeague’s homosexual activities in London in an attempt to recruit him”.MI5 has denied possession of any actual blackmail material concerning McKeague. This is implausible.A honeytrap that ended in fiascoOn another occasion an incident took place which looks suspiciously like it was a paedophile ‘honeytrap’ that went wrong. Kerr was taken to a hotel. “There was a fight [between two men]. We were outside [the hotel]…Two cars came up to the front of the hotel. I was directed away from the two guys. Those two guys were put into a car. I was put into another car with three men. I was sitting right in the middle. One was to my right. One was to my left and then you have the driver and then they took off. They brought me back to Kincora by the side door. Mr Mains knew about this because he had [received] a telephone call. He knew that I was coming back. I knocked on the door and Mr Mains opened up. He told me to go to my room and he said not to say anything”.[1993] EWCA Crim J1124-6 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION No. 93/3502/X3 Royal Courts of Justice The Strand London WC2 Wednesday 24 November 1993 Before: The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Taylor of Gosforth) Mr Justice Owen and Mr Justice Latham Regina v. Anthony John McCallen MR CARTWRIGHT appeared on behalf of THE APPELLANT Computer Aided Transcription by John Larking, Chancery House, Chancery Lane, London WC2 Telephone 071–404 7464 (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) JUDGMENT (As Approved) [1993] EWCA Crim J1124-6 2 Wednesday 24 November 1993 THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: Mr Justice Latham will give the judgment of the Court. MR JUSTICE LATHAM: After pleading not guilty at the plea and directions hearing on 25 January 1993 the appellant pleaded guilty on 18 March 1993 to one offence of being knowingly concerned in the importation of an indecent video; six offences of taking indecent photographs of young boys; and finally, two offences of indecent assault. So far as the importation of the video was concerned he was sentenced to six months imprisonment; for the indecent photographs he was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment concurrent with each other and concurrent with the six months imposed for the video offence; and for the offences of indecent assault he was sentenced to three-and-a-half years imprisonment concurrently on each of those two counts and concurrently with the other sentences, making a total of three-and-a-half-years imprisonment. It is against that sentence that he now appeals with the leave of the Single Judge. The appellant is 47 years of age and is a Roman Catholic priest. At the time he was the Chaplain of St Anthony’s, Beverley Road, Kingston upon Hull. The offences came to light in the following circumstances. Customs and Excise investigators followed an indecent video which had been imported from Germany. It was collected by the appellant. Although he sought in the first instance to deny it was for him, he was subsequently constrained to admit it. A search warrant was obtained for the presbytery in Kingston upon Hull in which he lived, and a house, 4 Paradise Road on Holy Island, Northumberland. The latter was an address to which the appellant would take parties of young boys from his parish for holiday weekends, or even weeks. Investigators found in those addresses “literally thousands of photographs and articles of an indecent nature”, together with video tapes and drawings. It was clear that the appellant was obsessed by young boys. Amongst the material seized were narratives written by him of a highly explicit nature involving sexual activity with young boys. [1993] EWCA Crim J1124-6 3 So far as the video is concerned it is right to say that it was an indecent video; it was not a pornographic video and it did not display any sexual activity. The majority of the indecent photographs were of young boys who had come with him to 4 Paradise Road. They were of the boys in the shower at that address. He had so arranged things that from outside the door he could surreptitiously photograph the boys in the bathroom. The photographs in question appear in the main to be simple nude photographs, but there are a few in which it appears that the boy is masturbating. The indecent assault charges also arise out of photographs. The evidence upon which the two counts were laid consisted of the photographs. The first is of a boy standing naked against the appellant, who is dressed in a track suit, and who has his hand on the bare cheeks of the boy’s backside. The second is a photograph showing the appellant on a bed in a state of undress, with a boy wearing nothing but underpants lying across him. Neither photograph shows any act of gross indecency. Only one statement from one of the boys was referred to by the prosecution in the opening of the facts to the Court below. In that statement it was said: [1993] EWCA Crim J1124-6 4 “Father McCallen (that is the appellant) always encouraged us to be ourselves. This included swearing and engaging in pranks with Father McCallen. Father McCallen would put his hand down my trousers and feel my naked backside, putting his hands in the crevice of my anus. I did not see anything wrong in this at the time as I trusted Father McCallen as a friend and I considered such actions to be part of playing around. Father McCallen also rubbed his beard on my backside and face, and also smacked my backside. Again I saw nothing wrong with this.” Although there was no sexual activity between the appellant and any of the boys, the evidence suggests that the way in which the appellant behaved towards them has led at least one boy to be confused as to the real nature of the indecency that was being perpetrated. In these circumstances it was inevitable that the judge would conclude —and rightly —that what happened was a very serious abuse. It was an abuse of the trust of both boys and their parents, bearing in mind the position that the appellant held in relation to them as their priest. It is clear that what he did has led to, at the very least, some concern as to the extent to which the boys have developed a proper sense of what is right and wrong in the area of indecency. It is undoubtedly sad that the appellant should come before the Court in these circumstances, because it would appear that until these matters came to light he was a well-respected man who had served his community well. But the dark side of his nature, which emerged in the form of this erotic obsession, is one which has clearly caused great anguish to those parishioners with whom he lived and worked. [1993] EWCA Crim J1124-6 5 We have before us reports from Dr Spencer, a psychiatrist from Oxfordshire, a Dr Livingstone, a psychiatrist working at the therapeutic rehabilitation centre run by the Catholic church; and a pre-sentence report from Miss Carey. All those reports make it clear that the appellant is in fact a deeply disturbed man and requires substantial help if he is to overcome his obsession. It is worrying to see that certainly at one time he was seeking to minimise his part by to some extent blaming the boys. One can see that from the reports. On the other hand, it is right to say that Dr Spencer’s report makes it clear that treatment is not only necessary but has some prospect of success. He has stated that the appropriate treatment is unlikely to be available in prison and he asserts —and counsel on behalf of the appellant seeks to support this assertion —that the right course is to make an order today which will allow that treatment to take place forthwith. However, there are other considerations to which we have already referred. The abuse of trust rendered this a most serious case. In the circumstances there is no alternative but to say that a prison sentence was inevitable. However, although this was persistent behaviour over a substantial period of time, there was no more in terms of incident assault than touching. There was no gross indecency. In those circumstances we consider that a sentence of three-and-a-half years imprisonment for these indecent assaults was too long, and we propose to reduce that sentence to one of two years imprisonment. As far as the taking of the indecent photographs is concerned, we again consider that the sentence of 18 months imprisonment was too long and should be reduced to 12. All those sentences will remain, as they were in the first instance, concurrent sentences, so that the total will be one of two years imprisonment. We wish to say this. We clearly accept that this man needs help. There is no reason why he should not obtain some help in prison, but more importantly there is no reason why he should not seek and obtain help appropriate to his problems once he is released from prison. We encourage him to do so. To the extent we have indicated this appeal is allowed. ” data-medium-file=”” data-large-file=”” class=”size-medium wp-image-14288″ src=”https://i1.wp.com/www.villagemagazine.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/oldfield.jpg?resize=300%2C237&ssl=1″ alt=”” width=”300″ height=”237″ srcset=”https://i1.wp.com/www.villagemagazine.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/oldfield.jpg?resize=300%2C237&ssl=1&zoom=2 1.5x” scale=”1.5″ style=”background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 5px 5px 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; height: auto;”>Sir Maurice Oldfield (centre, with glasses), in 1974.Two of Kerr’s close friends and fellow victims were to die young. One of them, Stephen Waring, couldn’t take any more of the brutality and horror, and committed suicide in 1977 by jumping into the sea during a trip on the Liverpool-Belfast Monarch Ferry. There were other victims who died.The Anglo-Irish Vice RingKerr’s social workers – who are still alive – furnished details about the abuse to Peter McKenna of the Irish Independent. It took a while but he eventually exposed the scandal in January 1980. By this time, Kerr had been trafficked to England by Eric Witchell.The notorious paedophile, Sir Cyril Smith MP, was one of those who abused Kerr in Manchester. In London he was abused at the Philbeach Hotel in Earl’s Court; raped at Dolphin Square; and brought to Elm Guest House (EGH) which was frequented by Cyril Smith, Jimmy Savile and others. He was abused by a barrister at EGH. Hilton Tims, Editor of the Surrey Comet, 1980- 1988, has revealed that in the 1980s one of his journalists made inquiries about EGH only to receive a national security D-Notice injunction which shut his probe down. What possible “national security” threat was there in a story exposing a child brothel? Why did a judge issue the D-Notice?Sir Peter Hayman, the Deputy Chief Of MI6Sir Peter Hayman, KCMG, CVO, MBE was another of Richard Kerr’s abusers. Hayman rose to become High Commissioner to Canada and also worked for MI6. According to a slew of reports, he served as MI6’s Deputy Chief for a spell. He was also a member of the notorious Paedophile Information Network.The several appeals posted today are all relevant to the Christian Church. See a list of all of them here at the end of the day – Index of Court Appeals on this b Lyons offences were on boys of an age that would not now be an offence, hence redaction of some personal detail. He was sentenced with two others, Patrick and  Smith. Redaction Some court reports have had victims names redacted and some assault details redacted. This is a difficult balance –  normally I would think that  I should not “censor” details but on consultation with various people I have taken the decision to redact. This is mainly to protect victims, their friends and relatives from unnecessary detail and to stop the gratification of those who seek salacious details. In addition to the obvious “victims redaction” to protect victims details, there may also be “assault redaction” across most of the spectrum of abuse. The assaults are left in the charges, but mainly redacted when repeated with reference to the individual. I have also redacted unnecessary detail of assaults. Redaction may obscure sometimes the legal reason for the appeal, but should make no large difference to the vital information for researchers that these documents contain. That vital information is mainly names of the perpetrators, past addresses, institutions where assaults occurred, the actual charges the perpetrators faced, and dates – on which newspapers are pathetically inaccurate and this information enables the links between people and places and abuse at various times to be ascertained. Some transcripts may have been subject to automatic reading software and whilst effort has been made to correct these, the text should not be regarded as definitive.  Common mistakes in reprinting here are that quotation marks are sometimes not correct, replaced by odd symbols. If you think that the balance is not correct or that a particular redaction needs reconsideration, please say. This appeal is redacted for some personal detail by cathy fox blog Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog [1] Index of Court Appeals on this blog [2] [1975] EWCA Crim J0610-4 No. 1672/C/75 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Tuesday, 10thJune1975 Lord Justice James Regina v. [redacted] Lyons (From the Shorthand Notes of Cherer & Co., 34 Essex Street, Strand, London, WC2R 3AT. Telephone No. 01-583 4121. Shorthand Writers to the Court.) MR. N. TAYLOR, Q.C. and MR. C. MAGILL appeared as Counsel for the Appellant. JUDGMENT LORD JUSTICE JAMES: On the 24th March last at the Central Criminal Court [redacted] Lyons, the Appellant, pleaded guilty to two offences of gross indecency. The offences were committed on the 6th July, 1974 and the gross indecency was committed with two youths, one just over the age of eighteen and another youth of sixteen. For those offences the Appellant was sentenced to a term of two years’ imprisonment concurrently. He appeals to this Court by leave of the single Judge. There were others involved on the indictment, in particular the Appellant’s friend named Smith who was twenty-eight years of age. He was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment in all for offences of indecent assault, attempted buggery and publishing obscene articles. Another person named Patrick, who was forty years of age, was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for indecent assault on male persons and gross indecency, the higher sentence being imposed on the gross indecency charges. The activities of the co-accused were not confined to the 6th July; those of the Appellant were. The facts can be stated quite shortly. The Appellant was of good character up to these offences. He had educated himself and trained himself into the Church, having attended a theological college. He had various positions in the Church and the post that he held at the time of these matters was one that he had recently taken up as curate at a church in North London. The offences were committed after he had been with his friend, the co-accused Smith, to an organ recital. The two of them had gone with five youths, two just over the age of eighteen and the others younger, the youngest being some fourteen years of age. They had gone to licenced premises where they had taken alcoholic refreshment, beer and gin, and they had gone then to the flat occupied by the co-accused Smith. Taking the facts from there on from the statement that was subsequently made by the Appellant himself it appears from what he says that everyone got rather boisterous ” …..making a lot of noise and then someone turned the light out in the room we were in. I am not sure how many of us were there, but it was something like six to eight people. I remember someone trying to take my trousers off and touching me. Everyone was generally engaged in mutual masturbation and were in different stages of undress. I remember that I masturbated AB and he masturbated me. I also remember that I orally masturbated one of the boys, but I’m not sure which one. This was not a passionate affair, it was just a lot of people behaving stupidly.” And, having regard to what was later said in the medical report, it is right to point out that at the conclusion of that statement, naming another boy, he says: ” … although I do like”, so-and-so, “and would have liked to have had a relationship with him, …. the opportunity never presented itself apart from being able to put my arm round him while others were present.” That statement was made in connection with his observation that he had not had any relationship with any of the other boys on that occasion. The Court has available, as did the trial Court, a report from a senior and experienced probation officer, Miss Putnam, who, having interviewed the Appellant, came to the conclusion that the difficulties and anxieties and “even turmoil of Mr. Lyons’ emotional life come from the conflicts he experiences in his sexual orientation.” That is confirmed by the two medical reports obtained from Dr. Snowdon of the Bethlem Royal Hospital and the Maudsley Hospital which we have had an opportunity to consider. Miss Putnam points out that the consequences of the conviction for these offences have been great indeed. The Appellant is full of shame and feels degraded by what he has done. He has lost his future, it would appear, so far as the Church is concerned in relation to his active service as a priest. But let it be said his future in respect of the Church, so far as advice and comfort is concerned, is assured in that his spiritual adviser, the Reverend Dean, has continued to show even greater interest in him and to give all the support that can be given, and the Court is assured that that will be available in the future. The explanation put forward from the result of medical investigation or psychiatric investigation is that at the time this Appellant, who is bisexually orientated, had his social judgment impaired by what had gone on before the offence took place and by the circumstances and behaviour of those who were with him at that time. It is suggested that this experience, resulting in the conviction and sentence, will ensure that nothing of this sort will occur again. In the second report of Dr. Snowdon it is said that imprisonment “serves merely as a punishment and cannot be thought of as therapeutic in any sense. Indeed, I believe it serves as a counter-therapeutic measure in two respects: firstly by depriving the community of the excellent social work with old people that he had just commenced in Camden Town; secondly, by increasing the chance of him remaining bitter and chronically tense as a result of what he sees as the unfairness of the law.” It is right to say that after the conviction and his suspension from duties in the Church he did take up employment under the London Borough of Camden, working with elderly people, and he has served the community so well in respect of that that the local authority have written two letters which in their totality confirm that employment in that field would be open to him if he were to regain his freedom as a result of this appeal, and they support his appeal. Mr. Taylor, who appears on behalf of the Appellant, has argued everything that can be argued on behalf of the Appellant. It is right, as has been said, that both boys clearly had considerable sexual experience of this sort before the 6th July when this Appellant became involved with them. Indeed, none of the boys who were present were members of or attached to the church where the Appellant was a curate. But, looking at the evidence, it is quite clear that those boys who were present when the offences were committed knew the Appellant as the curate of a church. It is argued properly that at the time of these offences the Appellant was coming out of some acute emotional disturbance over the breakdown of a relationship he had had with a young lady, which he had hoped would come to fruition in a marriage but which was, in fact, terminated. Although it does not appear as a ground of appeal Mr. Taylor has argued that the sentence of two years’ imprisonment upon the Appellant is inequitable when one considers the sentence of two years’ imprisonment imposed upon the co-defendant Patrick, whose offences were, as to some of them, more grave in their classification though not necessarily in their circumstance and whose offences were in fact stretched over a period of some four years and not confined to one particular date. Disparity of sentence is a perfectly proper argument to put forward. It is a difficult argument upon which to succeed because, if only for this reason, that the trial Judge has an advantage over any appellate court in having had the matter placed before him on behalf of all those who appear before him at the same time. We cannot find here anything that would lead us to interfere with the sentences on the Appellant on the ground of disparity with the sentences imposed upon Patrick. The main burden of the argument of Mr. Taylor is that bearing in mind particularly the terms of Section 20 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, which provides that a Court should not pass a sentence of imprisonment upon a person who has not been sentenced previously to a term of imprisonment unless there is no other method of dealing with that person appropriately, the advantages and disadvantages of allowing this man his freedom as against sentencing him to prison are such that make the balance come down heavily in favour of a non-custodial method of dealing with the Appellant and on that basis it is urged that these sentences should be quashed. One accepts without hesitation that prison is unlikely to do the Appellant any good. One accepts without hesitation the argument that life in prison for him will be difficult and will subject him to pressures which cannot be of any advantage or good for him. One accepts that he was a person of good character and one accepts that since conviction he has shown himself keen and eager to do the good work that he has been doing and which has been in the interests of the public in the Camden area of London. Looking at the matter from the point of view of the individual alone, the Appellant alone, there is considerable force in the arguments that are put forward by Mr. Taylor on his behalf. Mr. Taylor has invited our attention to the case of R. v. Willis , which is reported in (1975) 1 Weekly Law Reports, page 292 , and in particular to the passages in the judgment of Lord Justice Lawton commencing at page 295 and going on to page 296 in which the learned Lord Justice sought to give some general guidelines to courts faced with the task of sentencing persons for sexual offences and drew attention to headings under which circumstances can properly be considered when sentence has to be passed in such cases – such as physical injury, moral corruption, abuse of authority and trust, mental imbalance and so forth. It is not without significance that the learned Lord Justice in that case did say that it is not the label of indecent assault which is important but the nature of the act. The same thing applies if one uses those words in the offence of gross indecency. The learned Lord Justice went on: “In many cases it amounts to no more than putting a hand on or under clothing in the region of the testicles or buttocks. Such cases are not serious. In some the assault may take the form of a revolting act of fellatio, which is as bad as buggery, maybe more so. Sentences should reflect the seriousness of the act constituting the indecent assault.” It is not indecent assault and there is no element of corruption on the particular facts of this case, but it does remain a case in which the circumstances have to be taken into account in assessing what the proper method of dealing with the offender is. Mr. Taylor has pointed out one side of the coin, and rightly so. The other side of the coin is this, that one of the purposes of passing a sentence is to make clear the seriousness which the Courts on behalf of the public attribute to the offending behaviour. Here we have the circumstance of a man of the cloth, known to be such, going with young boys to what he must have known was going to be an orgy or might develop into an orgy and not resisting whatever temptations, pressures or inclinations he may have felt and indulging in two acts against which the public, although sorry for him in some ways, would nevertheless revolt and would regard as meriting punishment. Having considered carefully all the arguments addressed to us we cannot find that these sentences are wrong in principle or excessive and the appeal is dismissed. Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based. The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers. National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups. One in Four [C] Havoca [D]. Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog. Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful. Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J] Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K] Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M] ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N] Links [1] Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/05/23/newspaper-stories-index-timeline/ [2] Index of Court Appeals EWCA on this blog https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/a-timeline-of-court-and-ewca-documentation-on-cathy-fox-blog/ [A] Sanctuary for the Abused http://abusesanctuary.blogspot.co.uk/2006/07/for-survivors-coping-with-triggers-if.html [B] NAPAC http://www.napac.org.uk/ [C] One in Four http://www.oneinfour.org.uk/ [D] Havoca http://www.havoca.org/HAVOCA_home.htm [E] SurvivorsJustice Triggers post http://survivorsjustice.com/2014/02/26/triggers-what-are-they-and-how-do-we-work-through-them/ [F] SurvivorsJustice Blog http://survivorsjustice.com/ [G] Jim Hopper Mindfulness http://www.jimhopper.com/mindfulness/ [H] Jim Hopper Meditation http://www.jimhopper.com/mindfulness/#cultivate [J] 2016 Jan 5 Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma https://hwaairfan.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/an-indigenous-australian-approach-to-healing-trauma/ [K] Survivors UK website for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men https://www.survivorsuk.org/ and twitter https://twitter.com/SurvivorsUK [L] Voicing CSA website – http://voicingcsa.uk/ helps arrange survivors meetings in your area. Voicing CSA supports the IICSA and VSCP and works to help adult survivors of child sexual abuse find their voice [M] A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links https://aprescriptionforme.wordpress.com/help/#emotionalsupport [N] ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal”.  blog – https://shatterboysuk.wordpress.com/ email – shatterboysuk@gmail.com facebook – https://www.facebook.com/shatterboysuk/?fref=ts twitter – @Shatter_Boys_UK This is all written in good faith but if there is anything that needs to be corrected or you wish to write to me please email lyons@cathyfox.33mail.com quoting the article title the truth will out, the truth will shout, the truth will set us free “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” – Edmund Burke “He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers.” Charles Peguy To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards out of men  – Ella  Wheeler Wilcox Every time we act in the face of fear, we dilute it’s power and increase our confidence – via Gary Havener Only the small secrets need to be protected, the large ones are kept secret by public incredulity – Marshall McLuhan ” data-medium-file=”” data-large-file=”” class=”size-medium wp-image-14289″ src=”https://i0.wp.com/www.villagemagazine.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Peter-Hayman.jpg?resize=213%2C300&ssl=1″ alt=”” width=”213″ height=”300″ srcset=”https://i0.wp.com/www.villagemagazine.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Peter-Hayman.jpg?resize=213%2C300&ssl=1&zoom=2 1.5x” scale=”1.5″ style=”background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 5px 5px 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; height: auto;”>Sir Peter HaymanIn October 1978 London detectives discovered his collection of child pornography: 45 of his diaries describing six years of “sexual fantasies” about children; and that he was a member of a group which swapped photographs. One of them shared fantasies about torturing children to death, with yet another paedophile. The police prosecuted two of them while Hayman was given a warning not to send obscene material through the post. In March 1981, Geoffrey Dickens, a Tory MP, named him in the House of Commons. Margaret Thatcher’s Attorney-General, Sir Michael Havers, argued that Hayman’s collection was not of an extreme nature and hence he had not warranted prosecution.Despite all the chances he was given, Hayman failed to curb his impulses and was arrested in a public lavatory in London in 1984 with a boy and convicted of gross indecency – but let off with a caution.The RUC perverts the course of justiceKerr has told Village how, “detectives from the RUC also interviewed me in January of 1980 in Preston, Lancaster. I was taken out of the place and threatened when they got me to the police station. Because of their threats I was scared to tell them anything. I kept my mouth shut knowing that the abusers I met were still in contact with me, and the police put me in a cell and made me feel that I was responsible for what happened as if I was the guilty person”.Kerr later moved to London where other detectives – this time not from the RUC – visited his home, “and did the same thing. They intimidated me and wanted me to not speak any more about what happened. So you can understand why I was scared because they always tried to make me feel I was responsible. I knew too much about what was going on, and the people that were involved – who I became afraid of”.A bell hop who was able to live beyond his meansIn London, Kerr secured work as a “bell hop” at the Cumberland Hotel near Marble Arch in London. As the pressure built up around the Kincora scandal in the early 1980s, the people behind the cover-up adopted a policy of carrot and stick to contain Kerr. By way of carrot, his financial security was assured: he was able to afford to live in Flat Number 1, 44 Baker St, around the corner from Oxford Street. Kerr has furnished Village with documentation which confirms he lived there. There was no conceivable way a teenage “bell hop” from Belfast could have afforded such a desirable residence without considerable financial assistance.By way of stick, the intimidation continued: a group of men came to his flat at 44 Baker St. Some were in police uniform, others in civilian clothing. They knocked him to the ground, told him that they were from the British “Secret Service” and that he was to keep quiet about what he knew or they would arrest him as a ‘terrorist’.The hard-cop-soft-cop routine was also deployed: the next day he received an apology for the rough treatment he had experienced.Paisley throws his weight about at the Cumberland HotelOne evening Kerr was at the bell hops’ station at the Cumberland Hotel when a colleague from the hotel’s café strolled across and told him someone was looking for him. The visitor turned out to be Ian Paisley. Kerr’s recollection of what would unfold is vivid and sharp: Paisley was seated on his own at a table “near a glass area” and was “wearing a suit with a hat that was placed on the table”. He also “carried a newspaper” which he “placed on the table”. A pair of men sat adjacent to him “in professional dress”. While Kerr recognised Paisley, he did not know the others. They would not address him at any stage during the encounter that ensued. “They created space between themselves and others”. As Kerr recalls it: “Paisley spoke with them; they were in earshot of our conversation. I was unable to discern if they spoke in an English accent. I do know that they were accompanying Paisley because they joined him after our conversation was complete”.[1975] EWCA Crim J0610-4 No. 1672/C/75 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Tuesday, 10thJune1975 Lord Justice James Regina v. Paul Benson Lyons (From the Shorthand Notes of Cherer & Co., 34 Essex Street, Strand, London, WC2R 3AT. Telephone No. 01-583 4121. Shorthand Writers to the Court.) MR. N. TAYLOR, Q.C. and MR. C. MAGILL appeared as Counsel for the Appellant. JUDGMENT LORD JUSTICE JAMES: On the 24th March last at the Central Criminal Court Paul Benson Lyons, the Appellant, pleaded guilty to two offences of gross indecency. The offences were committed on the 6th July, 1974 and the gross indecency was committed with two youths, one just over the age of eighteen and another youth of sixteen. For those offences the Appellant was sentenced to a term of two years’ imprisonment concurrently. He appeals to this Court by leave of the single Judge. There were others involved on the indictment, in particular the Appellant’s friend named Smith who was twenty-eight years of age. He was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment in all for offences of indecent [1975] EWCA Crim J0610-4 2 assault, attempted buggery and publishing obscene articles. Another person named Patrick, who was forty years of age, was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for indecent assault on male persons and gross indecency, the higher sentence being imposed on the gross indecency charges. The activities of the co-accused were not confined to the 6th July; those of the Appellant were. The facts can be stated quite shortly. The Appellant was of good character up to these offences. He had educated himself and trained himself into the Church, having attended a theological college. He had various positions in the Church and the post that he held at the time of these matters was one that he had recently taken up as curate at a church in North London. The offences were committed after he had been with his friend, the co-accused Smith, to an organ recital. The two of them had gone with five youths, two just over the age of eighteen and the others younger, the youngest being some fourteen years of age. They had gone to licenced premises where they had taken alcoholic refreshment, beer and gin, and they had gone then to the flat occupied by the co-accused Smith. Taking the facts from there on from the statement that was subsequently made by the Appellant himself it appears from what he says that everyone got rather boisterous ” …..making a lot of noise and then someone turned the light out in the room we were in. I am not sure how many of us were there, but it was something like six to eight people. I remember someone trying to take my trousers off and touching me. Everyone was generally engaged in mutual masturbation and were in different stages of undress. I remember that I masturbated David Stevenson and he masturbated me. I also remember that I orally masturbated one of the boys, but I’m not sure which one. This was not a passionate affair, it was just a lot of people behaving stupidly.” And, having regard to what was later said in the medical report, it is right to point out that at the conclusion of that statement, naming another boy, he says: ” … although I do like”, so-and-so, “and would have liked to have had a relationship with him, …. the opportunity never presented itself apart from being able to put my arm round him while others were present.” That [1975] EWCA Crim J0610-4 3 statement was made in connection with his observation that he had not had any relationship with any of the other boys on that occasion. The Court has available, as did the trial Court, a report from a senior and experienced probation officer, Miss Putnam, who, having interviewed the Appellant, came to the conclusion that the difficulties and anxieties and “even turmoil of Mr. Lyons’ emotional life come from the conflicts he experiences in his sexual orientation.” That is confirmed by the two medical reports obtained from Dr. Snowdon of the Bethlem Royal Hospital and the Maudsley Hospital which we have had an opportunity to consider. Miss Putnam points out that the consequences of the conviction for these offences have been great indeed. The Appellant is full of shame and feels degraded by what he has done. He has lost his future, it would appear, so far as the Church is concerned in relation to his active service as a priest. But let it be said his future in respect of the Church, so far as advice and comfort is concerned, is assured in that his spiritual adviser, the Reverend Dean, has continued to show even greater interest in him and to give all the support that can be given, and the Court is assured that that will be available in the future. The explanation put forward from the result of medical investigation or psychiatric investigation is that at the time this Appellant, who is bisexually orientated, had his social judgment impaired by what had gone on before the offence took place and by the circumstances and behaviour of those who were with him at that time. It is suggested that this experience, resulting in the conviction and sentence, will ensure that nothing of this sort will occur again. In the second report of Dr. Snowdon it is said that imprisonment “serves merely as a punishment and cannot be thought of as therapeutic in any sense. Indeed, I believe it serves as a counter-therapeutic measure in two respects: firstly by depriving the community of the excellent social work with old people that he had just commenced in Camden Town; secondly, by increasing the chance of him remaining bitter and chronically tense as a result of what he sees as the unfairness of the law.” [1975] EWCA Crim J0610-4 4 It is right to say that after the conviction and his suspension from duties in the Church he did take up employment under the London Borough of Camden, working with elderly people, and he has served the community so well in respect of that that the local authority have written two letters which in their totality confirm that employment in that field would be open to him if he were to regain his freedom as a result of this appeal, and they support his appeal. Mr. Taylor, who appears on behalf of the Appellant, has argued everything that can be argued on behalf of the Appellant. It is right, as has been said, that both boys clearly had considerable sexual experience of this sort before the 6th July when this Appellant became involved with them. Indeed, none of the boys who were present were members of or attached to the church where the Appellant was a curate. But, looking at the evidence, it is quite clear that those boys who were present when the offences were committed knew the Appellant as the curate of a church. It is argued properly that at the time of these offences the Appellant was coming out of some acute emotional disturbance over the breakdown of a relationship he had had with a young lady, which he had hoped would come to fruition in a marriage but which was, in fact, terminated. Although it does not appear as a ground of appeal Mr. Taylor has argued that the sentence of two years’ imprisonment upon the Appellant is inequitable when one considers the sentence of two years’ imprisonment imposed upon the co-defendant Patrick, whose offences were, as to some of them, more grave in their classification though not necessarily in their circumstance and whose offences were in fact stretched over a period of some four years and not confined to one particular date. Disparity of sentence is a perfectly proper argument to put forward. It is a difficult argument upon which to succeed because, if only for this reason, that the trial Judge has an advantage over any appellate court in having had the matter placed before him on behalf of all those who appear before him at the same time. We cannot find here anything that would lead us to interfere with the sentences on the Appellant on the ground of disparity with the sentences imposed upon Patrick. [1975] EWCA Crim J0610-4 5 The main burden of the argument of Mr. Taylor is that bearing in mind particularly the terms of Section 20 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, which provides that a Court should not pass a sentence of imprisonment upon a person who has not been sentenced previously to a term of imprisonment unless there is no other method of dealing with that person appropriately, the advantages and disadvantages of allowing this man his freedom as against sentencing him to prison are such that make the balance come down heavily in favour of a non-custodial method of dealing with the Appellant and on that basis it is urged that these sentences should be quashed. One accepts without hesitation that prison is unlikely to do the Appellant any good. One accepts without hesitation the argument that life in prison for him will be difficult and will subject him to pressures which cannot be of any advantage or good for him. One accepts that he was a person of good character and one accepts that since conviction he has shown himself keen and eager to do the good work that he has been doing and which has been in the interests of the public in the Camden area of London. Looking at the matter from the point of view of the individual alone, the Appellant alone, there is considerable force in the arguments that are put forward by Mr. Taylor on his behalf. Mr. Taylor has invited our attention to the case of R. v. Willis , which is reported in (1975) 1 Weekly Law Reports, page 292 , and in particular to the passages in the judgment of Lord Justice Lawton commencing at page 295 and going on to page 296 in which the learned Lord Justice sought to give some general guidelines to courts faced with the task of sentencing persons for sexual offences and drew attention to headings under which circumstances can properly be considered when sentence has to be passed in such cases – such as physical injury, moral corruption, abuse of authority and trust, mental imbalance and so forth. It is not without significance that the learned Lord Justice in that case did say that it is not the label of indecent assault which is important but the nature of the act. The same thing applies if one uses those words in the offence [1975] EWCA Crim J0610-4 6 of gross indecency. The learned Lord Justice went on: “In many cases it amounts to no more than putting a hand on or under clothing in the region of the testicles or buttocks. Such cases are not serious. In some the assault may take the form of a revolting act of fellatio, which is as bad as buggery, maybe more so. Sentences should reflect the seriousness of the act constituting the indecent assault.” It is not indecent assault and there is no element of corruption on the particular facts of this case, but it does remain a case in which the circumstances have to be taken into account in assessing what the proper method of dealing with the offender is. Mr. Taylor has pointed out one side of the coin, and rightly so. The other side of the coin is this, that one of the purposes of passing a sentence is to make clear the seriousness which the Courts on behalf of the public attribute to the offending behaviour. Here we have the circumstance of a man of the cloth, known to be such, going with young boys to what he must have known was going to be an orgy or might develop into an orgy and not resisting whatever temptations, pressures or inclinations he may have felt and indulging in two acts against which the public, although sorry for him in some ways, would nevertheless revolt and would regard as meriting punishment. Having considered carefully all the arguments addressed to us we cannot find that these sentences are wrong in principle or excessive and the appeal is dismissed. ” data-medium-file=”” data-large-file=”” class=”alignright size-medium wp-image-14290″ src=”https://i1.wp.com/www.villagemagazine.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/paisley3.jpg?resize=300%2C225&ssl=1″ alt=”” width=”300″ height=”225″ srcset=”https://i1.wp.com/www.villagemagazine.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/paisley3.jpg?resize=300%2C225&ssl=1&zoom=2 1.5x” scale=”1.5″ style=”background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 4px 0px 12px 24px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; float: right; max-width: 100%; height: auto;”>Paisley asked Kerr “to be seated after I was speaking with him standing up”. At the start “of the conversation I did not feel intimidated, yet as the meeting continued, I did begin to feel uneasy”, Kerr recalls.Paisley knew he had been at Kincora and instructed him that if he was questioned by the police, he was not to “mention anything about Englishmen at Kincora”. Kerr was dumbfounded and responded “What?” Paisley repeated the instruction and added that he was “not [to] speak of other events that occurred in Belfast”.“I nodded my head. No verbal communication was made”. The encounter only lasted about ten minutes. Paisley left with the two men. “I then went back to the bell station slightly disturbed and I did not respond to another bell boy’s question of the encounter”.Kerr’s impression of the other men was that they had behaved “normally [and] they didn’t appear to be threatening”. Initially he had not been frightened by them as “they did not speak to me. It wasn’t until later that evening after the meeting [had ended] did I begin to feel concerned as to their intentions”.How did Paisley know that Kerr had been in Kincora?Who told him Kerr was working at the Cumberland?Who told Paisley “Englishmen” had abused children at Kincora?Why was Paisley prepared to help protect English paedophiles?Who were the men who accompanied him?The following week a white envelope arrived at the hotel. It contained black-and-white photographs of Kerr, naked. The manager of the hotel, a Mr Gardner, showed them to Kerr who was deeply embarrassed and made an excuse that they must have been posted by a jealous ex-girlfriend. Gardiner let Kerr know that he was not pleased but didn’t dismiss him.Who were the Englishmen Paisley strove to protect?Clint Massey, another Kincora survivor, revealed in 2015 that “there were loads of people over from London. I have always assumed they were senior figures from Whitehall. I certainly heard English accents”.The whistle-blower Robin Bryans (See Village October 2017) knew a lot of them, including Anthony Blunt of MI5. Another was a “decidedly gay-looking” man called Peter England. Bryans told this author in 1990 that while he knew England “very well” he “didn’t like him much”.England was a former boyfriend of Sir Samuel Knox Cunningham QC MP and had also had a relationship with the Irish publisher, Charles Monteith, both members of the Anglo-Irish Vice Ring.Peter England lived in London, had served in the Royal Navy during WWII and later went to work at the Ministry of Defence (MoD). He transferred to the Northern Ireland Office in the 1970s. Declassified files furnished to the Hart Inquiry demonstrated that some of his work involved oversight of the black propaganda activities ofthe Army and intelligence services. According to Bryans, “the main thing to do with covering up for Kincora” related to England. This analysis makes perfect sense because England: 1) had died in 1978 and therefore could be named without fear of a libel action; 2) had a criminal record: he had been arrested and convicted for obscene behaviour in a London toilet; 3) his exposure would have blown the Kincora cover-up wide apart, for it would have demonstrated knowledge of the scandal at the highest level of the NI O and made a nonsense of the claim that Kincora was an isolated aberration.The late Merlyn Rees, a former Secretary of State for NI , worked with England at the NI O. In his NI memoirs, Rees described how England was: “a man of wide experience at the [MoD], whose work over the next three years [in Belfast] was to prove invaluable, though the physical stress of the job may have contributed to his tragically early death in 1978”. Moreover, he said that England “was a hard task master but at the same time he always showed concern for those working in the office”.Clearly, England showed more “concern’”for his staff than for the children he abused. By the time of his death, Bryans recalled that England had let himself go and had become “scruffy”.There is more: on 23 January 2015 the late journalist Liam Clarke reported in the Belfast Telegraph that two RUC officers had told him that a Tory MP had “visited Kincora during the 1970s”. Both officers, he reported, were “willing to help any inquiry into Kincora either here or in England. They revealed that the MP died before they could arrange to interview him”. There are only two MPs who match this description. One of the officers revealed that the MP had visited NI “quite regularly…We were told by criminal records in Scotland Yard, London, that he had a conviction many years ago for indecent behaviour or something in a gen ts’ loo against another boy, but his death meant we never got a chance to question him”.The several appeals posted today are all relevant to the Christian Church. See a list of all of them here at the end of the day – Index of Court Appeals on this blog [2] Defendant was a vicar in Hull and the offences convicted were minor physical abuse. Redaction Some court reports have had victims names redacted and some assault details redacted. This is a difficult balance –  normally I would think that  I should not “censor” details but on consultation with various people I have taken the decision to redact. This is mainly to protect victims, their friends and relatives from unnecessary detail and to stop the gratification of those who seek salacious details. In addition to the obvious “victims redaction” to protect victims details, there may also be “assault redaction” across most of the spectrum of abuse. The assaults are left in the charges, but mainly redacted when repeated with reference to the individual. I have also redacted unnecessary detail of assaults. Redaction may obscure sometimes the legal reason for the appeal, but should make no large difference to the vital information for researchers that these documents contain. That vital information is mainly names of the perpetrators, past addresses, institutions where assaults occurred, the actual charges the perpetrators faced, and dates – on which newspapers are pathetically inaccurate and this information enables the links between people and places and abuse at various times to be ascertained. Some transcripts may have been subject to automatic reading software and whilst effort has been made to correct these, the text should not be regarded as definitive.  Common mistakes in reprinting here are that quotation marks are sometimes not correct, replaced by odd symbols. If you think that the balance is not correct or that a particular redaction needs reconsideration, please say. This appeal is unredacted by cathy fox blog Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog [1] Index of Court Appeals on this blog [2] [1988] EWCA Crim J0523-2 No. 819/F2/88 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Monday, 23rd May 1988 Lord Justice May Regina v. Michael Walter (Transcript of the Shorthand Notes of Marten Walsh Cherer Ltd., Pemberton House, East Harding Street, London, EC4A 3AS. Telephone No: 01-583 7635. Shorthand Writers to the Court). MR. T. CRACKNELL appeared on behalf of the Appellant. JUDGMENT (As approved by Judge) MR. JUSTICE KENNEDY: On 22nd January, 1988, in the Crown Court at Beverley, the appellant was convicted and sentenced in respect of three offences of common assault. The sentence in respect of each of those offences was one of six months’ imprisonment suspended for two years, those sentences to run concurrently. He now appeals against sentence by leave of the single judge. The appellant was at the material time 51 years of age and, in 1970, he was convicted of an offence of indecent assault, for which he served a sentence of imprisonment. From 1985 to 1986 he was the vicar of a church in Hull. Children used to visit the vicarage and the appellant would on occasions take them on outings in groups. Coming to the first common assault, a boy of 10 in June/July, 1985 was playing draughts with the appellant and he accused the appellant of cheating. The appellant then hit him across the head with his left hand, knocking the boy to one side, so that his head hit the kitchen wall. The boy then left and went home in tears. The second common assault occurred in July/August, 1986, when a girl, who was then 12, visited the vicarage in order to play with the appellant’s train set. He twisted her arm behind her back and she ran home in tears. The pain continued for some time that evening, but she said that she did not think that the appellant had meant to hurt her and that the incident had started as a bit of fun. She returned to the vicarage on subsequent occasions until she was prevented from going there by her parents. The third offence of common assault related to a girl who was then 14 years of age. On one day during the summer of 1986, she had also been playing with the appellant’s train set. She touched a button which sent the train onto a different track, the appellant stood up and slapped her across the right cheek with the flat of his hand, leaving a red mark, and she then stopped visiting him. On 10th December, 1986 police officers visited the appellant having been alerted by the Child Watch organisation. In June, 1987 he was arrested. It is important to appreciate that there were in this indictment serious charges of indecent assault, of which he was acquitted. In the grounds of appeal, which are put forward on his behalf, reference is made to the fact that there was no injury of any lasting nature occasioned to any child, and each of the assaults was a reaction to bad behaviour on the part of a child. There was no evidence of sadism or gratuitous violence. It is submitted that the 1970 incident really has no bearing at all because it was of an entirely different character and here the learned judge was dealing with a man who had not been shown to behave in this way towards children on any prior occasion and who clearly accomplished a great deal of good in the parish which he served. It seems to us that there is force in all of those submissions and that it was not appropriate here for the learned judge to pass a sentence of imprisonment. The sentence which ought to have been imposed was one of conditional discharge. Accordingly, the sentences which were imposed will be quashed and there will be substituted for them a sentence of 12 months’ conditional discharge. LORD JUSTICE MAY: Mr. Cracknell, is it possible for you to undertake to explain to Mr. Walter the effect of the conditional discharge? MR. CRACKNELL: My Lord, Mr. Walter is here. LORD JUSTICE MAY: If he is here, you can explain precisely what a conditional discharge means and what the consequences will be if (and we hope not) that conditional discharge is broken in the 12 months from the date of conviction. MR. CRACKNELL: I will do that now. LORD JUSTICE MAY: Very well. Thank you very much indeed. Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based. The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers. National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups. One in Four [C] Havoca [D]. Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog. Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful. Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J] Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K] Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M] ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N] Links [1] Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/05/23/newspaper-stories-index-timeline/ [2] Index of Court Appeals EWCA on this blog https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/a-timeline-of-court-and-ewca-documentation-on-cathy-fox-blog/ [A] Sanctuary for the Abused http://abusesanctuary.blogspot.co.uk/2006/07/for-survivors-coping-with-triggers-if.html [B] NAPAC http://www.napac.org.uk/ [C] One in Four http://www.oneinfour.org.uk/ [D] Havoca http://www.havoca.org/HAVOCA_home.htm [E] SurvivorsJustice Triggers post http://survivorsjustice.com/2014/02/26/triggers-what-are-they-and-how-do-we-work-through-them/ [F] SurvivorsJustice Blog http://survivorsjustice.com/ [G] Jim Hopper Mindfulness http://www.jimhopper.com/mindfulness/ [H] Jim Hopper Meditation http://www.jimhopper.com/mindfulness/#cultivate [J] 2016 Jan 5 Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma https://hwaairfan.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/an-indigenous-australian-approach-to-healing-trauma/ [K] Survivors UK website for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men https://www.survivorsuk.org/ and twitter https://twitter.com/SurvivorsUK [L] Voicing CSA website – http://voicingcsa.uk/ helps arrange survivors meetings in your area. Voicing CSA supports the IICSA and VSCP and works to help adult survivors of child sexual abuse find their voice [M] A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links https://aprescriptionforme.wordpress.com/help/#emotionalsupport [N] ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal”.  blog – https://shatterboysuk.wordpress.com/ email – shatterboysuk@gmail.com facebook – https://www.facebook.com/shatterboysuk/?fref=ts twitter – @Shatter_Boys_UK This is all written in good faith but if there is anything that needs to be corrected or you wish to write to me please email walter@cathyfox.33mail.com quoting the article title the truth will out, the truth will shout, the truth will set us free “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” – Edmund Burke “He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers.” Charles Peguy To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards out of men  – Ella  Wheeler Wilcox Every time we act in the face of fear, we dilute it’s power and increase our confidence – via Gary Havener Only the small secrets need to be protected, the large ones are kept secret by public incredulity – Marshall McLuhan ” data-medium-file=”” data-large-file=”” class=” wp-image-14291″ src=”https://i0.wp.com/www.villagemagazine.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/kerr_1.jpg?resize=582%2C474&ssl=1″ alt=”” width=”582″ height=”474″ srcset=”https://i0.wp.com/www.villagemagazine.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/kerr_1.jpg” style=”max-width:100%;” />

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *