Brian Sheppardson 8th November 1982 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 J1108-3

No. 410/B/81



Royal Courts of Justice

Monday, 8th November 1982

The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Lane)

Mr. Justice Boreham


Mr. Justice Stephen Brown


Brian Sheppardson

(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. I. FOSTER appeared on behalf of the Appellant.


(As approved by Judge)
MR. JUSTICE BOREHAM : On 18th December 1980 at the Central Criminal Court
before His Honour Judge Pigot and a jury, this appellant, Brian
Sheppardson, was convicted and sentenced as follows: for indecent assault
on a male person, three years’ imprisonment; for buggery (two counts), ten
years’ imprisonment on each count, all those sentences to run concurrently,
ten years in all. The sentences were also expressed to run concurrently
with a term of seven years which had been imposed eight days previously, on
10th December 1980, for offences of buggery involving two other boys, the
brothers of the little boy who was involved in the later indictment.

He now appeals to this Court against the totality of that sentence, and he
does so by leave of the full Court.

As already indicated, the two indictments involved three brothers, who
lived in Liverpool at the time of the offences against them. The older
brother who figured in the earlier indictment was aged 13 or 14. The little
boy who figured in the second indictment, the youngest brother, was aged
only about 8 or 9.

To deal with the matter in chronological order, and that means taking the
offences dealt with on 10th December first, the appellant was telephoned by
another man, who has appeared before this Court today, who said that he
wanted to introduce him to two young boys. They were the two older
brothers. One of them spoke to this appellant on the telephone.

He arrived a week later at the flat where they were living. With no more
preliminaries than a cup of tea, when the older of the boys was sitting on
a bed in the flat, this appellant went over to the boy, told him to lie
down and buggered him. The other three, that is two other grown men and the
victim’s younger brother, were standing and watching.

The appellant then came back to Liverpool and went to live at the home of
the parents of those two boys and whilst there, in their own home, he
buggered the older one again. He then bought a secondhand shop in Liverpool
and the older boy and his father ran the shop, over which was
a flat. At that flat this appellant committed [assault redaction]. Enough has been said of the circumstances of the offences in the first indictment.

The second indictment concerned, as I have indicated, the youngest of the
three brothers and concerned only that little boy. He met this appellant at
the beginning of 1977 or there abouts. It would appear that at that time
the little boy was some where about 6 or 7 years of age. At one of the
addresses in Liverpool where this appellant lived and the little boy stayed
with him, he behaved indecently towards him. Hence the charge of indecent

The appellant returned to London and took up residence in what is known as
the Cockney Cafe, some where in the East End of London, and the young boy
stayed there for about six weeks. Twice during that period this man
committed buggery with him. It seems very likely, to say the least, that
the boy’s parents thought that he was staying with the appellant’s mother.
Be that as it may, the first incident of [assault redaction] was alarming indeed,
because, despite his very tender years, the boy was[assault redaction 2 lines].
There was much independent evidence to indicate that the little boy was
sleeping with this appellant throughout the period of six weeks.

Enough has been said so far as these offences are concerned. They are
clearly matters of great gravity, particularly the second indictment,
having regard to the age of the boy concerned.

The appellant is now 45 years of age. He has previous convictions. There
was one conviction for this very offence of buggery way back in November
1963. He was sentenced then to five years’ imprisonment, reduced to three
years on appeal. In 1968, again a considerable time ago, he received a
suspended sentence of three months’ imprisonment for inciting a child under
14 to gross indecency. There were other convictions for offences of
dishonesty which have little impact on this appeal.
Before this Court Mr. Foster, if he will allow one to say so, in a succinct
and a very attractive argument on behalf of this appellant, really makes
four points and he has been realistic enough to preface those four points
with these observations: first that these were very serious offences, and
secondly, they inevitably attract very substantial terms of imprisonment,
but it might be a matter for debate whether ten years was just a little too
much. He contends that this sort of sentence, a sentence of ten years, is
reserved for those who have a bad record of sexual offences or a bad record
generally, and that a perusal of this man’s record does not put him into
the category of one which should attract such a severe sentence as was
passed here.

Secondly he says, and there is no doubt substance in this, that for a man
convicted of sexual offences, particularly sexual offences against young
children, male or female, life in prison is intolerable: certainly it is
harder than for a man convicted of a very serious offence of dishonesty or
a non-sexual offence. It is likely, says Mr. Foster, that he will have to
spend most of his imprisonment, if not the whole of it, under rule 43,
which means segregation from his fellow-prisoners.

Thirdly we are referred to this appellant’s medical history. It is
unnecessary to go into great detail. It was clear, when the matter was
before the learned Judge at the Central Criminal Court, that there was much
to be said on this particular aspect, and no doubt to be prayed-in-aid on
this appellant’s behalf. He recently had open heart surgery. It was clear
even at that time that he had serious difficulties with his vision. He was
totally blind in his left eye and vision in his right eye was very much
reduced. We are asked to take account of the fact, and so we do, that there
has been a deterioration in that situation since the learned Judge at the
Old Bailey passed sentence. Thus two consequences flow. First, says Mr.
Foster, it will mean that imprisonment becomes if not
intolerable, well nigh intolerable, to a person who is totally blind, and
secondly – this of course is germane to the question of protection of the
young – if this deterioration continues and this appellant is rendered
totally blind, he would then constitute substantially less of a menace than
the learned Judge at the Old Bailey considered him to be when he sentenced

Finally we are reminded of the well known decision of this Court in
* Willis * . It will be no offence to Mr. Foster’s submissions if this
Court does not go through the matters set out in * Willis * . They are well
known to all of us. His contention, based upon what was said in that case,
can be stated shortly thus: if we take into account the aggravating
features which undoubtedly exist in this case, and if we accept, as we do,
the sort of level of sentence that was suggested as the starting point in
* Willis * , we should not reach a sentence of ten years’ imprisonment.

For all these reasons we are asked now to reduce this sentence.

This Court has come to this conclusion. Of course there may be cases of
buggery, as in the case of any other offence, where the sole purpose of the
sentence is to punish for a single offence. But of course the learned Judge
in this case was dealing with a very different set of circumstances. Here
was a course of conduct with three little boys spread over a very
substantial period of time; a course of conduct carried out when this
appellant was very much in a position of trust towards them and
particularly towards the youngest of those three brothers. One has in mind
particularly that period of six weeks when he entertained him at the cafe
in the East End of London. Thus in the circumstances of this case the
learned Judge was entitled to look, as no doubt he did, not only to the
question of punishment, but to the question of protection of little boys in
the future.

So far as rule 43 is concerned, of course that is mitigated to a very large
extent, if that is a matter that we should properly take into account, by
the provisions made in the prison service. There are
establishments where a wing is devoted to offenders of thie kind.

Thirdly the matter which has moved this Court and ceused us most concern is
the appellant’s medical record and prognosis. That is a matter which we
have no doubt the prison authorities, and through them the Home Secretary,
will have constantly in mind so long as this man stays in prison. We have
no doubt that if the circumstances justify, or if circumstances induce
those in authority to believe it to be the proper course, steps will be
taken at the appropriate time and in appropriate circumstances to allow
this man his liberty or to make some relaxation in his regime.

In our judgment the overriding factors at this time are those to which
reference has already been made, namely the youth of the victims, the
persistence of the appellant’s conduct and the fact that this was not a
case where the appellant showed contrition or the likelihood of turning
over a new leaf even by a plea of guilty. In our judgment the learned Judge
was right to take into account, and to give full weight to, the protection
of youngsters from appalling conduct of this kind. In these circumstances
this appeal must be dismissed.

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.


[1] Cathy Fox Blog 2015 May 8 [constantly updated] An Index / Timeline of Court Appeal Documents on Cathy Fox Blog

[2] 2015 May 6 Cathy Fox blog Paedophilia around Piccadilly Part 4- Playland Trial and Cover Up

[A] Sanctuary for the Abused


[C] One in Four

[D] Havoca

[E] SurvivorsJustice Triggers post

[F] SurvivorsJustice Blog

This is all written in good faith but if there is anything that needs to be corrected please email

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

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, cathyfoxblog, Child Abuse, Child sexual abuse, Court, London and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Brian Sheppardson 8th November 1982 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: Logo

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.