Basil John Andrew-Cohen Malcolm Jack Raywood and Brian Sheppardson 1982 Jul 13 Court of Appeal

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. 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. Other useful sites are One in Four [C] and Havoca [D]. Useful post on triggers [E] from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.

Redaction Some 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” I have thus “assault redacted” on descriptions of assaults but not on the charges themselves. It appears to make no large difference to the vital information for researchers that these documents contain. That information is mainly names of the perpetrators, past addresses, and the charges they faced – on which newspapers are pathetically inaccurate. If you think that the balance is not correct or that a particular redaction needs reconsideration, please say.

For An Index / Timeline of Court Appeal Documents on Cathy Fox Blog [1]

This post is relevant to Paedophilia around Piccadilly Part 4- Playland Trial and Cover Up [2]

[ 1982] EWCA Crim J0713-2

5594/B2/81

28/C1/81

410/A1/81

513/B1/81

1745/B1/81

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

Tuesday, 13th July 1982
Before:

Lord Justice O’Connor

Mr. Justice Purchas

and

Mr. Justice Farquharson

Regina
v.

Basil John Andrew-Cohen

Malcolm Jack Raywood

and

Brian Sheppardson

Regina
v.

Basil John Andrew-Cohen

and

Malcolm Jack Raywood

(Transcript of the Shorthand Notes of Marten Walsh Cherer Ltd., 36-38
Whitefriars Street, Fleet Street, London EC4Y 8BH. Telephone Number 01-583
7635. Shorthand Writers to the Court.)

MR. D. MARTIN-SPERRY appeared for the Applicants.

JUDGMENT

(As approved by Judge)

MR. JUSTICE PURCHAS : The Court is concerned with a number of applications
made by three Applicants arising out of a number of trials which took place
at the Central Criminal Court, as a result of which the three Applicants
were convicted and sentenced between the 27th November, 1980, and the 17th
March, 1981. All the Applicants renew their applications after refusal by
the single judge.

On the 27th November, 1980, Andrew-Cohen was convicted on four counts of
indecent assault on a boy. The offence took place during December, 1976,
when the boy was just under 14 years of age. The boy had met Andrew-Cohen
and Raywood around Christmas, 1976, and he went to their flat at an address
in Liverpool with his brother. The boys stayed overnight and then returned
on another night. On the second occasion, the indecency which formed the
subject matter of the first count, was committed. Thereafter, the boy, with
the knowledge of his father, continued to stay at the flat where the
remaining offences took place.

In passing sentence, the learned judge said this: “You, Basil John
Andrew-Cohen, are 44 years of age. You have been found guilty of four
counts of indecent assault on a boy then aged 13½ years, I am satisfied he
had until that time, no homosexual experience and you have an appalling
record of homosexual offences stretching back to 1970. In all, apart from
the offences for which I am sentencing you today, you have either been
found guilty or pleaded guilty or admitted no less than 44 homosexual
offences and appeared before this court on no less than six occasions for
this type of offence, before this and other courts.”

The learned judge went on to comment that this Applicant was a menace to
youths and would continue to be so
as long as he was at liberty. The judge decided that a long sentence of
imprisonment was necessary. Having carefully read the papers and listened
to the submissions made by Mr. Martin-Sperry in support of this and other
applications by Andrew-Cohen, we have come to the conclusion that the
application for leave to appeal against the sentences passed on the 27th
November, 1980, must be refused.

On the 8th January, 1980, Andrew-Cohen was convicted on three counts of
indecent assault on another boy. The boy was then 12 years of age. The
Applicant was sentenced to sentences totalling three years’ imprisonment.
Those sentences were ordered to run concurrently with each other but
consecutively to the sentences passed on the 27th November, 1980.

The boy concerned was a different boy. We have listened to the submissions
made by Mr. Martin-Sperry. As a result of what he has said, this court is
of the view that there is an argument to be based on the submission that
had the two sets of offences been dealt with simultaneously, the
overwhelming probability is that concurrent sentences would have been
passed for the second group of offences. Accordingly, leave to appeal
against the sentences passed on the 8th January, 1981, is granted. Mr.
Martin-Sperry did have instructions to agree that the hearing of the
application should be treated as the hearing of the appeal “but this court
is not taking that course. The appeal against sentence will be dealt with
subsequently.

On the 27th November, Malcolm Jack Raywood was convicted on one count
alleging the full offence but was convicted of attempted buggery upon a
boy, which took place
in December, 1976. At that time, the boy was 15½ years of age. In fact, he
the elder brother of the boy on whom the offences were committed by
Andrew-Cohen. They took place at the same flat.

The Applicant Raywood renews his application for leave to appeal against a
sentence of five years’ imprisonment, which was passed upon him on that
occasion. The grounds of appeal are set out in the appropriate form. The
court has considered those grounds. We have also considered the papers and
the transcript. When passing sentence, the learned judge said: “Malcolm
Jack Raywood, you are now 48 years of age. The jury have found you guilty
of attempted buggery on a youth then aged years. He gave evidence in this
court, and I accept that evidence – as, indeed, did the jury – that this
was his first acquaintace with homosexual practices, and, therefore, any
sentence I may pass must reflect some evidence of corruption, although it
is true, as your learned counsel-has observed, there was no physical
injury, and no evidence of any permanent psychological injury as the person
concerned has now married,”

Later on, the learned judge said: “In view of your record, the gravity of
this offence, albeit not the completed offence, and the need to protect
boys from your attentions, because I believe there will always be a risk as
long as you are at liberty, the least sentence I can pass, taking into
consideration everything that has been said by your learned counsel, and
the sentence I do pass is a sentence of five years’ imprisonment.”

Having carefully considered all the matters, this court has come to the
conclusion that there is no criticism
that can be made of the passing of the sentence of five years’
imprisonment. Raywood’s application for leave to appeal against sentence
passed on the 27th November, 1980, is refused.

On the 17th March, 1981, Raywood was convicted of buggery upon an entirely
different boy. He was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment, to run
concurrently with the term of five years’ imprisonment, to which we have
just referred. He renews his application for leave to appeal against both
conviction and sentence. The court has carefully considered the transcript,
the summing-up and the proposed grounds of appeal which were settled by
counsel. It is not necessary for us to go into any kind of detail. We have
come to the conclusion that the grounds of appeal raise matters which may
be arguable on an appeal. Accordingly, leave to appeal against conviction
on the second of the occasions on which Raywood was concerned, that is the
conviction and sentence passed at the Central Criminal Court on the 17th
March, 1981, is granted. The court will also grant legal aid limited to one
counsel only. Raywood’s application for leave to appeal against the
sentence passed on that occasion will be adjourned to be dealt with by the
court hearing the appeal against conviction.

On the 10th December, 1980, Brian Sheppardson was convicted on four counts
of buggery involving both the brothers who were concerned with Andrew-Cohen
and Raywood. The offences took place between January, 1976 and January,
1977. The boys were then aged 14 and 15½. Sheppardson was sentenced to
seven years’ imprisonment on each count concurrent. He now renews his
application for leave to appeal against those
sentences, We have very carefully read the papers in the case. All the
offences were very similar to those involving the same boy and the other
two Applicants.

Sheppardson seems to have been called in by Andrew-Cohen for the purpose of
being introduced to these two boys. As a result of that introduction at the
flat in Liverpool and at other places in Liverpool, the offences of buggery
were committed. These were repeated offences which were part of a long
series of offences.

When passing sentence, the learned Judge referred to previous convictions
for buggery – albeit that they had been committed a considerable time
before this offence – for which a sentence of five years’ imprisonment had
been passed. Later on, that sentence had been reduced on appeal to three
years’ imprisonment. The learned Judge also took into account the bad
health suffered by Sheppardson, The learned Judge then said: “I cannot
overlook the fact that although it may be said properly that you did not
initiate either of these two young boys into buggery itself, there is an
element of corruption. On the evidence in this case, in the case of each of
the boys, the buggery with you was the second time and only the second time
they had been buggered. Therefore, there must be some element of corruption
which I take into consideration in passing sentence, I also bear in mind
that you lived with these boys for two and a half years at various
addresses, although I appreciate the force of what your learned counsel,
who has ably defended you, has said on this matter. But, this is clearly a
serious case. The offences are grave and, of course, when convictions are
recorded, the according sentence must be severe,”
We see no grounds upon which the sentences of seven years’ imprisonment,
passed upon Sheppardson on the 10th December, 1980, can in any way be
criticised, Sheppardson’s application for leave to appeal against those
sentences is refused.

On the 18th December, 1980, Sheppardson was convicted on other counts, one
count being an offence of indecent assault, which was committed on the
younger brother of the two boys involved in the earlier offences referred
to in this judgment. He received a sentence of three years’ imprisonment,
to run concurrently with the other sentences. Two other counts of buggery
upon the same boy referred to offence committed some time between April,
1979 and September, 1979. He was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment, to
run concurrently with the other sentences.

The court has carefully read the grounds of appeal which set out the
Applicant’s complaints about the summing-up and the conduct of the trial,
with particular reference to the evidence given by two medical witnesses;
one called on behalf of the prosecution and one called on behalf of the
defence in relation to the period of time the Applicant was in custody.

The matter was most carefully dealt with by the learned judge when he
summed-up the case to the jury, We have also considered all the other
matters raised in the proposed grounds of appeal and we can find no issue
mentioned therein which could be reasonably argued on an appeal. Leave to
appeal against the conviction on the 18th December, 1980, is refused.

However, we have also considered the sentence which was passed on this
occasion. Without going into any kind of
detail, the court has come to the conclusion that the sentence passed for
buggery may raise arguable matters on an appeal. Therefore, whilst holding
out no hope or encouragement to the Applicant, we do give leave to appeal
against the sentence passed on the 18th December, 1980. We will grant legal
aid for that purpose, which will be restricted to one counsel.

LORD JUSTICE O’CONNOR : There are two matters I wish to add.

As far as Andrew-Cohen is concerned, he may have legal aid, counsel only,
for the period of the appeal and, Mr. Martin- Sperry, we will give legal
aid for your appearance yesterday.

We extend that to counsel only.

MR. MARTIN-SPERRY: I was going to ask the court if that could be extended
to cover the services of my solicitor.

He has been involved in a considerable amount of correspondence with the
Applicant.

LORD JUSTICE O’CONNOR : I am prepared to consider a liquidated sum, What
are you asking for?

MR. MARTIN-SPERRY: I would ask for the sum of £75.

LORD JUSTICE O’CONNOR : I do not think that that is unreasonable.

So be it. It is limited to £75. There is one further matter I wish to add
about these cases, When the appeals come on for hearing, counsel for the
prosecution appear’ing in the Raywood appeal, should also prepare himself
to deal with any questions which may be asked of him on the sentencing
appeals of the other two Applicants, in particular the reasons given by the
learned judge for passing a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment on
Sheppardson.

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. 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. Other useful sites are One in Four [C] and Havoca [D]. Useful post on triggers [E] from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog.

Links

[1] Cathy Fox Blog 2015 May 8 [constantly updated] An Index / Timeline of Court Appeal Documents on Cathy Fox Blog https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/a-timeline-of-court-and-ewca-documentation-on-cathy-fox-blog/

[2] 2015 May 6 Cathy Fox blog Paedophilia around Piccadilly Part 4- Playland Trial and Cover Up  https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/05/06/paedophilia-around-piccadilly-part-4-playland-trial-and-cover-up/

[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/

This is all written in good faith but if there is anything that needs to be corrected please email cathyfox@bigfoot.com

cathyfox the truth will out, the truth will shout, the truth will set us free

Advertisements

About cathy fox blog on Child Abuse

the truth will out, the truth will shout, the truth will set us free...
This entry was posted in #OpPaedoHunt, cathy fox blog, Child Abuse, Child sexual abuse, Court, London, Paedophilia around Piccadilly and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Basil John Andrew-Cohen Malcolm Jack Raywood and Brian Sheppardson 1982 Jul 13 Court of Appeal

  1. Pingback: Timeline of Court and EWCA Documentation on Cathy Fox blog | cathyfox blog

  2. Pingback: Paedophilia around Piccadilly Part 4 Playland Trial and Cover up | cathyfox blog

  3. Pingback: Paedophilia around Piccadilly Part 5 1980s and Operation Circus | cathy fox blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s