"A PAEDOPHILE teacher who preyed on his own pupils has had his jail term more than doubled after his original sentence was judged to have been “unduly lenient”.
Richard Oldham, 32, was jailed for just six months in September when he admitted a catalogue of offences while teaching in York - including sexual assaults against two 10-year-old boys, voyeurism and making and possessing indecent images of children."If you too would like to get involved the next time you see a sentence that is completely unreflective of the crime, please read my posting from earlier this year - How to appeal against Unduly Lenient Sentences.
It works.
Yours could be the appeal that increases an unduly lenient sentence. Go for it.
Sent 19 September 2013
"Dear Sir,
I would like to appeal against the sentence handed down to Richard Oldham, Leeds Crown Court as being unduly lenient, the reasons being as below:
"The punishment of offenders
This shows society’s unhappiness with the offence committed. Punishment can include loss of, or restrictions to, a person’s liberty or the payment of a fine." This was a paedophile teacher who has committed a variety of offences against children for eight years across primary schools, including making IIOC up to level four (I realise I cannot appeal against this), touching children and voyeurism. Receiving a six month sentence for eight years of sexual offences is merely a slap on the wrist, and send out a message that this crime is not taken seriously, and in no way does it show society's unhappiness.
the reduction of crime (including its reduction by deterrence)
This includes individual deterrence (aimed at preventing the individual offender from committing another crime) and general deterrence (using the sentence imposed on an offender as an example to deter others from committing a similar offence). As per the above reasons, a six month sentence is no deterrent whatsoever for his behaviour. If anything, the fact that he was a teacher and had responsibility for primary school children on a daily basis, should demand a slightly longer sentence than a paedophile who was not in his position of responsibility.
"the protection of the public
This can include protecting the public from the offender and from the risk of further crimes being committed. This may be achieved, for example, by removing an offender from society (putting them in prison), restrictions on their activities or supervision by probation." The fact that he has committed various crimes over a period of eight years, must mean that there is a strong possibility (or probability) that he is very likely to offend again. Locking him up for six months, minus parole / good behaviour, is no protection to the public, especially with the contact he has had with children.
I have already contacted the CPS regarding Judge Jameson's anti-victim comments regarding Richard Oldham being such a good teacher and a loss to the community - I hope that there is some way that they will be able to address this as this language is unacceptable."
"The fact that he has committed various crimes over a period of eight years, must mean that there is a strong possibility (or probability) that he is very likely to offend again. Locking him up for six months, minus parole / good behaviour, is no protection to the public, especially with the contact he has had with children."
ReplyDeleteExcellent. Now we need to raise universal awareness of the overwhelming likelihood these these paedophiles will reoffend again, and to condemn the anti-victim prejudice inherent in the judge's comments about the loss to the community.
If we wish to keep children safe, yet still allow weak sentences for these crimes, our child protection is merely empty wishful thinking.
Well done, R. Bougeard, for your work on this.
Elle
Ian Sluggett jailed for 10 years :
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-25267588
Ian Sluggett, 40, pretended to be a 16-year-old boy when he made friends with girls aged between 13 and 16 on Facebook.
Sluggett, of Whetstone, Leicestershire, was jailed for 10 years after pleading guilty to 23 sex offences.
Indecent photo threats: Sluggett, who has three children and is separated from his wife, sent indecent photos of himself to some of the girls and persuaded some of them to send him indecent images of themselves.
He threatened to publish the images if the girls did not comply with his demands for increasingly explicit photos and videos.
He met some of the girls in person, and coerced them into having sex.
Police investigated him after a teacher overheard two pupils talking about how one was being coerced to send indecent photos.
So there we have it, a documented progression from an 'inocent' but revealing photo/screenshot to coercion to more extreme intimate activity to then having to meet an adult for sex
.....with potential to be passed round ring members, into prostitution or even trafficking.
This was discussed before at: http://jerseyric.blogspot.com/2013/07/jurassic-park-2013.html
A MUST READ IS the semi-industrialised snapping and coercion of girls (& potentially boys) and tragic consequences which is documented here:
www.vice.com/read/cowards-are-blackmailing-young-women-to-death-on-the-internet-0000556-v19n12
UK media is running a fairly tame campaign about the risks of "sexting" which highlights the issue of a foolish moment or a even a trusted friend
Hollyoaks & "Sexting: An open letter from parents to teenagers"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25000800