Select the search type
  • Site
  • Web
Search

Welcome to Penman Sedgwick!

Sexual Abuse Cases

R .v. E
St. Albans Crown Court

The Defendant was by way of indictment charged with 6 offences:

  1. Made an indecent photograph, namely a level 5 image, of a child, contrary to Sections 1(1)(A) and 6 of the Protection of Children Act 1978.
  2. Made an indecent photograph, namely level 4 image, of a child,  contrary to sections 1(1)(A) and 6 of The Protection Of Children Act 1978. 
  3. Made an indecent photograph, level 3 image, of a child, contrary to sections 1(1)(A) and 6 of The Prevention of Children act 1978
  4. Made an indecent photograph, level 2 image, of a child, contrary to sections 1 (1)(A) and 6 of the Protection of Children Act 1978.
  5. Made an indecent photograph, level 1 image., of a child, contrary to sections 1(1)(A) of The Protection of Children Act 1978
  6. Had in his possession indecent photographs, namely 143 images ( 6 x level 5, 22 x level 4, 21 x level 3, 5 x level 2, and 89 x level 1 ).

The Defendant also admitted to logging onto a website, conversing sexually with a 14 year old girl, and showed the girl a picture, then arranging to meet the following week, but did not. 

The Defendant pleaded Guilty to all charges.

Sentence:

A Community Order for a 3 year period and supervision, with an accredited programme The Thames Valley Sex Offenders Group, for 36 months.
An Order for the forfeiture and destruction of computer equipment.
To be subject to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order for a period of 5 years.
Not to use a computer which does not have a facility to retrieve any historical data, and be subject to searches ad hoc.
To pay £450 Prosecution costs.

R .v. B
St. Albans Crown Court

The Defendant, was charged with the following Counts:

  1. Intentionally caused or incited a Girl under the age of 13, to engage in sexual activity of a non penetrative nature, namely the removal of her knickers, Contrary to section 8(1) and (3) of The Sexual Offences act 2003.
  2. Intentionally caused or incited a Girl under the age of 13, to engage in sexual activity of a non penetrate nature, namely looking at his penis.
  3. Made an indecent photograph namely a Level 1 image of a child, Contrary to Section 1 (1) (A) and 6 of the Protection of Children Act 1978.
  4. Made an indecent photograph namely a Level 1 image of a child, Contrary to Section 1 (1) (A) and 6 of the Protection of Children Act 1978.
  5. Made an indecent photograph namely a Level 1 image of a child, Contrary to Section 1 (1) (A) and 6 of the Protection of Children Act 1978.
  6. Made indecent photographs namely 87 Level 1 images of a child, Contrary to section 1 (1) (A) and 6 of the Protection of Children Act 1978.
  7. Made an indecent photograph namely Level 2 image of a child Contrary to Sections 1(1) (A) and 6 of the Protection of Children Act 1978.
  8. Made and indecent photograph namely Level 2 of a child, Contrary to Sections 1(1) (A) and 6 of the Protection of Children Act 1978.
  9. Made indecent photograph`s, namely 2 Level Two images of a Child, Contrary to Sections 1 (1) (A) and 6 of the Protection of Children Act 1978.
  10. Had in possession indecent photographs of children, namely 94 images ( 90 x Level 1 and 4 Level 2, Contrary to Section 160 (1) and (3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, as amended by Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000.

The Defendant pleaded Guilty to Counts 3 – 10.

The Trial was on Counts 1 and 2, to which Guilty verdicts were returned.

The Learned Judge advised that the Defendant presented a risk of serious harm to children, and that such offending was not catered for in the Sentencing Guidelines

That there was a starting point of 2 years imprisonment having regard to the seriousness of the case. There were aggravating features in respect of the two girls.

Lengthy legal submissions, with authorities were made, with submissions as to Guidelines for Sentence.

Sentence:

Count 1 – 2  Years imprisonment
Count 2 – 9 months imprisonment
Both sentences to be concurrent ( = 2 years total.)

Remaining Counts – 1 month imprisonment for each Count, and concurrent with the 2 years imprisonment

(THEREFORE TOTAL IMPRISONMENT BEING 2 YEARS, less time on remand and tag for qualifying curfew.)

A successful Bail Application was made to release the Defendant from Remand before trial, and to remain on strict bail conditions until conclusion of the trial. On the Guilty verdicts after trial, the Defendant was placed into custody until sentence.

Reported in the Watford Observer

R.v.T
Oxford Crown Court

The Defendant, was charged with 6 Counts, involving historic Indecent Assault with a child, between the years 2001 and 2002, as follows:

  1. Incited a child under the age of 16 years, to commit an act of gross indecency with her namely by inviting her to perform oral sex, being Indecency with a Child, contrary to section 1(1) of the Indecency with Children Act 1960.
  2. Incited a child under the age of 16 years, to commit an act of gross indecency with him, namely to touch his penis, being Indecency with a Child, contrary to section 1(1) of the Indecency with Children Act 1960.
  3. Indecently assaulted a female person, under the age of 16 years by forcing his tongue down her throat when kissing her, being Indecent Assault, contrary to section 14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956.
  4. Indecently assaulted a female person under the age of 16 years by touching her vagina with his fingers, being Indecent Assault, contrary to section 14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956.
  5. Indecently assaulted a female person under the age of 16 years by touching her vagina, being Indecent Assault, contrary to section 14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956
  6. Indecently assaulted a female person under the age of 16 years by licking her vagina, being Indecent Assault, contrary to section 14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956

If found Guilty, the Defendant would have been sentenced to a lengthy custodial sentence.

After the Jury was instructed to retire to consider their verdicts by the Learned Judge, the Court was reconvened 32 minutes later, and the Jury returned UNANIMOUS NOT GUILTY VERDICTS ON ALL SIX COUNTS AND THE DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITED AND RELEASED.

The Court was advised that the matter was privately funded, and an Application for Costs was made and was granted.

Criminal Defence

Practice Area - Criminal

We are a member of Watford Business Club
The Partners are Members of the LLP | Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority | Registered office: 5 George Street, Watford, Hertfordshire, WD18 0SQ
Penman Sedgwick LLP is a limited liability partnership, registered in England and Wales under registered number OC330645