Paedophile teacher has sentence more than doubled. "Unduly Lenient" Works Again.

Richard Oldham

 

 

 

"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."

 

Proof again that appealing against sentences that are "unduly lenient" gets results. Sitting on your bums moaning about sentences that are rubbish, or moaning on Twitter / Facebook or on media articles etc gets you nowhere,

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."

Unduly Lenient Sentences, Appeals, and Failures That Seem To Make No Sense.

Matthew Thain

 

 

Back in 2010, Matthew Thane was found guilty of molesting a toddler and a schoolgirl, as well as amassing a library of 766 Indecent Images of Children, some being video clips (read the link above).

 

At the time, the Judge sentenced him to a three year Supervision Order, a Youth Offending Programme and a residency and Sexual Offenses Prevention Order.

 

Basically he walked out of court, a free man.

 

Disgusting!

 

Wish I had known about appealing sentences back then, that is one I definitely would have appealed!

 

So, fast forward to this year.

 

Matthew Thain

 

 

 

 

From the above article, Daily Mail, 5 July 2013

 

"A paedophile spared jail for molesting a toddler and a schoolgirl walked free again today despite lying to police about meeting the young sister of a girlfriend.

Matthew Thain, 21, also breached the terms of his suspended sentence by getting in touch with one of his former victims.
Thain, of Camberwell, southeast London, escaped jail in 2010 after a judge ruled intensive supervision would protect other children from the teenage paedophile.
But concerns were raised after he started seeing a woman with a 12-year-old sister.
He had also been in touch with another youngster he was banned from contacting.
Thain admitted attempting to pervert the course of justice and two breaches of a sexual offences prevention order.
Judge Peter Rook QC said: 'This is worrying because it is manipulative behaviour when he thought he was in breach of a court order.
'It's covering up and it's quite hard to argue that it doesn't deserve a custodial sentence.'
He added: 'It seems the breaches do fall into the category where a custodial sentence is appropriate because you were clearly deliberately ignoring a court order and there was a real risk.'
But he agreed he could suspend the sentence to allow Thain to take up a position as an apprentice chef.
The court heard Thain is due back in court tomorrow for posting a Facebook profile under the name 'Dumbo Bray' to try and reel in more victims.

Read the last two line again.

He allowed Matthew Thain to walk from court a free man a second time, so that he could work as an apprentice chef

The court heard Thain is due back in court tomorrow for posting a Facebook profile under the name 'Dumbo Bray' to try and reel in more victims.

You couldn't make this shit up!!

Seriously !!

So, I decided to appeal (as I do, with what I consider to be ULS). The AG agreed to recall the papers etc, so I had hoped that this would be fully reviewed and an appropriate sentence given.

But...

"Thank you for your letter dated the 04 July 2013 in which you expressed dismay at the sentence passed upon Matthew Thain for perverting the course of justice and breach of a sexual offences prevention order.  As you are aware, in certain circumstances, the Law Officers can apply to the Court of Appeal for sentences to be increased on the grounds that they are “unduly lenient”.   

The Law Officers’ power to refer sentences is contained within section 36 Criminal Justice Act 1988 but it is subject to certain restrictions.  The power is only available in respect of sentences imposed for certain offences, which includes perverting the course of justice but not breaching a sexual offences prevention order.  However, where an offence which is not referable is linked to one that is referable then both offences can be considered.   

The power to refer a sentence to the Court of Appeal for consideration as an unduly lenient sentence is not a prosecution right of appeal.  It is a power reserved for the most serious offences in which a sentence falls significantly below the sentence that any judge could reasonably have passed.  Having considered this case very carefully, the Solicitor General decided that it would not be right to refer it to the Court of Appeal as he did not believe they would increase the sentence.  

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to bring this case to the Solicitor General’s attention, I hope this explanation has been of some assistance."

Where is common sense when you need it?

Quite obviously, his original Offenders Treatment Programme did not work.

Quite obviously he still poses a risk.

Quite obviously he should have received a custodial sentence (IMHO)

Quite obviously sentences in the British Isles are more than often a complete joke when it is for paedophile crimes.

Quite obviously, there is little or no deterrence, little or no justice, and little or no "justice being seen to have been done".

Quite obviously, sentences need to be realistic and appropriate, and if they are not, they need to be reviewed.

Another Poor Excuse for an Unduly Lenient and AVP Filled Sentence

Paedophile spared jail because his 13-year-old victim looked older and was a sexual 'predator and was egging him on'

 

Nigel Peters - GROOMED

 

 

Apologies for the title of this posting, but the excuses given out by paedophiles and accepted by judges are unbelievable. In this article from today, in which 41 year old Neil Wilson basically walked free from court after "having a two week fling" (?? WTF) with a thirteen year old child, his excuse, and that of the prosecution, that was swallowed hook line and sinker by Judge Nigel Peters, was that his victim was " a sexually experienced predator who egged him on to commit one of the crimes he committed"

 

Seriously??

 

Are we to believe this to be a plausible excuse for a forty one year old to submit before court??

 

Apparently so.

 

Even worse was the judge who believed this, accepted that Neil Wilson knew that she was underage, and despite him also downloading level three images of child abuse, let him off with an eight month sentence suspended for two years! You seriously couldn't make this crap up!

 

Seriously, the UK needs to start taking this crime with the seriousness it should be taken with. Being groomed into blaming the victim for being a "13 year old sexual predator" is really taking the proverbial!

 

Consider this scenario:

 

An eighty year old tries "egging him on" in the same way (perfectly legal of course) - what would he do?

a) take advantage of her,

b) voice his concerns to Social Services or similar, or

c) ignore & do a fast one?

 

One would almost guarantee that answer c) would be the majority decision, with some people who have a conscience choosing option b)

 

What is the difference then?

 

If an adult male has a thirteen year old girl "trying it on with him", I would hope that the majority would at least raise this with someone like Social Services.

 

This is no excuse, and should not be bought by the #AVP groomed judges of the UK.

 

E-mail to AG today.

 

 

"I would like to appeal against the sentence handed down to Neil Wilson, Snaresbrook Crown Court today 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." As I have pointed out several times in previous appeals, crimes involving sexually abusing / rape against children should always be dealt with in a custodial manner. Society does not view offenders walking out of court as an adequate punishment for paedophiles, who by their nature will always pose a risk to children. 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). Giving paedophiles suspended sentences is absolutely no deterrence, especially as this was not the only offence committed (also the counts of Indecent Images of Children, level three, which should have resulted in a custodial sentence in itself, being level three). Saying that the victim was a "sexual predator" is an appalling thing for a judge to say, and absolutely no relevance to this case - he obviously knew that she was underage, and he still took advantage of a child.  If an eighty year old was to "egg him on" in the same way, would he do the same thing and enter into a sexual relation with her? Of course not, so why would he and the prosecution use this poor excuse -  this was a paedophile that saw an opportunity, and took full advantage "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." Someone who was downloading these sort of images, and someone who was prepared to commit the crime he has committed will pose a threat to other girls of a similar age. Letting him walk free from the courtroom is not protecting the public in any way - in plain words, he was a 41 year old who sexually abused a thirteen year, and he should be imprisoned for the protection of children in his area of the UK."