Roger Charles Gleaves Court of Appeal 17th July 1995

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. Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.

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” across most of the spectrum of abuse. This may obscure sometimes the legal reason for the appeal, but should make no large difference to the vital information for researchers that these documents contain. That information is mainly names of the perpetrators, past addresses, the actual charges the perpetrators faced – on which newspapers are pathetically inaccurate and this information enables the links between people and places and abuse at various times to be ascertained.

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 3 Profile of a paedophile Roger Gleaves [3]

[ 1995] EWCA Crim J0717-8

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION

No: 94/7198/Z4

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London WC2

Monday 17th July 1995

Before : Lord Justice Leggatt and His Honour Judge Capstick (Sitting as a
Judge of the CACD)

Regina
v.

Roger Charles Gleaves

MR I WHEATLEY appeared on behalf of the Appellant

(Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of John Larking,
Chancery House, Chancery Lane, London WC2 Telephone No: 071 404 7464
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

JUDGMENT

(As Approved by the Court )

JUDGMENT

LORD JUSTICE LEGGATT: Roger Charles Gleaves, now aged 62, appeals by leave
of the full court against his sentence, totalling three years’
imprisonment, imposed upon him on 28th November 1994 at Harrow Crown Court
by Judge Cohen QC. On 31st October the appellant had pleaded guilty on
re-arraignment to five offences of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by
deception, in respect of which he was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment
on each count concurrent and to four counts of obtaining property by
deception, in respect of which offences also he was sentenced to 18 months’
imprisonment on each concurrent, but that latter sentence was ordered to
run consecutively with the earlier sentences. 107 other offences were taken
into consideration.

The applicant was only released from his last prison sentence on 20th March
1990, and he thereupon immediately, as he was entitled to do, claimed
benefit as an unemployed person. During the period from March 1990 to April
1993 he in that way received benefits amounting to £5,917. Two of the
counts of obtaining property by
deception were specimen counts to reflect that fraudulent activity. He also
obtained Housing Benefit from March 1990 until May 1993 totalling £4,041:
the other two counts of obtaining property by deception reflect that
offending.

During the same period of three years, though mostly in the latter two
years of it, the appellant dishonestly obtained jobs with various security
firms by creating false identities for himself with the aid of false
documentation and, in particular, bogus references. He said that he was
doing so because, having had a number of convictions for sexual offences,
all of them before 1975, whenever it was known that he had been guilty of
such offences, either by his employer finding out directly or through the
press finding out and reporting the matter, he lost his job. Therefore he
argued, and it was said on his behalf in the court below, he found it
necessary to deceive in this way, if he was to work at all. But, of course,
it follows from the offences to which he pleaded guilty in relation to
benefits and Housing Benefits that whenever he was successful in obtaining
a job he did not report the matter to the Department of Social Security and
so continued to draw benefits to which, during the periods of his
employment, he was not entitled. In all there were five jobs that he
obtained fraudulently in this way and the total amount of money that he
derived gross from those employments was £23,654.

When he was arrested in September 1993 he admitted who he really was and at
interview, with his solicitor present, he accepted most of what was put to
him.

He argues before this court that the sentence of 18 months for benefit
frauds amounting to a little less than £9,000 in all was too long, and that
the sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment for the jobs fraudulently obtained
was similarly too long because, so far as they were concerned, he worked
conscientiously for so long as he served each of the five employers
respectively.

Referring us to the guideline case of * R v Stewart * (1987) 9 Cr.App.R (S)
135 , Mr Wheatley submits that had the court taken account of the matters
which appeared relevant in that case the sentence in the present case must
necessarily have been shorter than it was.

The appellant pleaded guilty. The frauds were committed over a period of no
more than about two years. The jobs were only obtained in the way that they
were because of the difficulties to which we have referred. Once having
started to obtain benefits, although the appellant should have ceased to
receive them when he obtained employment, that would have created
difficulties for him, having regard to the deception which he was
practising upon his employers. His style of living was no more than modest,
and the judge referred to him as a Jekyll and Hyde character, because
whereas on the one hand he behaved fraudulently and persisted in doing so,
on the other he did good work, of which there was independent
evidence, in running a first aid organisation which he had set up. It is
right to say that he had, for present purposes, not merely a bad, but a
dreadful character. Aside from the earlier matters to which we have
referred, he was, in 1981, sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment in the Wood
Green Crown Court for seven offences of obtaining property by deception. In
1985 at Southwark Crown Court he was sentenced to a total of three years’
imprisonment for 18 offences of theft and two of criminal deception.
Finally, in 1987, at Snaresbrook Crown Court, he received a sentence of
five years’ imprisonment concurrent on each of 12 cases of obtaining
property by deception, with 290 such offences taken into consideration.

It is said on his behalf that the pre-sentence report recommended that he
should be given the chance which has hitherto been denied him. To that we
must respond that no doubt it has been denied him on account of the scale
of his offending.

Finally Mr Wheatley submits, and most cogently submits, that in essence
these offences arise out of the same set of circumstances. Although there
were two forms of offence running concurrently, they essentially arose out
of the same difficulties that beset the appellant. So it is said that the
two groups of offences, instead of being the subject of consecutive
sentences, should be ordered to run concurrently. Most ambitiously of all
Mr Wheatley
submits that the period which the appellant has so far served of his
sentence of imprisonment should suffice to reflect his criminality. With
that we disagree.

In relation to his submission that the guideline cases suggest a shorter
period of imprisonment than 18 months, the answer must be that guidelines
are guidelines and not intended to constitute limitations on the power of
the court. It is idle to speak, as his counsel does, of conscientious work
when that work has been obtained fraudulently.

It was well said by the single judge, when initially leave to appeal
against sentence was denied:

“Your latest chapter of persistent, dishonest, deception began within a
year of your release from a long sentence for offences of a similar type
and it continued for over two-and-a-half years until your arrest; and the
total amount involved was over £30,000 (gross).”

Nonetheless, we think that there is force in the submission that it would
have been appropriate to have ordered the sentence for the two groups of
offences to have run concurrently. Approaching the matter in that way, it
must follow that when all the offences are aggregated the sentence will be
somewhat longer than for each of the groups considered separately. We
therefore quash the sentences of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant
and we substitute a sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment, the sentences to
be the same for all the counts and those sentences to run concurrently with
each other. The 107 other offences will, as
before, be taken into consideration.

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. Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.

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/

[3] 2014 Sept 16 Cathy Fox Blog Paedophilia around Piccadilly Part 3 Profile of a paedophile Roger Gleaves https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2014/09/16/paedophilia-around-piccadilly-part-3-profile-of-a-paedophile-roger-gleaves/

 

[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/

[G] Jim Hopper Mindfulness http://www.jimhopper.com/mindfulness/

[H] Jim Hopper Meditation http://www.jimhopper.com/mindfulness/#cultivate

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 Child sexual abuse, Paedophilia around Piccadilly and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Roger Charles Gleaves Court of Appeal 17th July 1995

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

  2. l8in says:

    Reblogged this on L8in.

  3. Pingback: An Index and Timeline of Court & Court of Appeal, EWCA Documents on Cathy Fox Blog | cathyfox blog

  4. Pingback: Paedophilia around Piccadilly Part 3 -Profile of a Paedophile – Roger Gleaves | cathyfox blog

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

  6. Pingback: Paedophilia around Piccadilly Part 4 Playland Trial and Cover up | 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