Timothy John O’Farrell Court of Appeal 21 November 2003

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 “victim redaction”  of names, personal details and medical details, I have thus “assault redacted” across most of the spectrum of abuse. In most cases the charges are not redacted, but sometimes the charges are mixed in with the assaults themselves.

Redactions 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 see [1]

This post is relevant to my Staffordshire Pindown Operation Thor post [2]

*Timothy O’Farrell*

[2003] EWCA Crim 3590

No. 2003/04243/A6

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

The Strand

London WC2A 2LL

Friday 21 November 2003
Before:

Lord Justice Judge

(Deputy Chief Justice of England and Wales) and

Mr Justice Silber

Regina
v.

Timothy John O’Farrell

Computer Aided Transcription by Smith Bernal, 190 Fleet Street, London EC4
Telephone 020–7421 4040 (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

MR G DICKINSON QC appeared on behalf of THE APPELLANT

JUDGMENT

(As Approved by the Court )

Friday 21 November 2003

LORD JUSTICE JUDGE : I will ask Mr Justice Silber to give the judgment of
the court.

MR JUSTICE SILBER :

1. Timothy John O’Farrell, who is now aged 36, was convicted of a series of
indecency offences at the Crown Court at Stafford on 16 January 2003. On 6
June 2003, he was sentenced to a total of four years’ imprisonment. On
three counts of assault with intent to commit buggery, he received
sentences of four years’ imprisonment on each count concurrent. On counts
2, 3 and 9, which were counts of indecent assault on a male, he received
two years’ imprisonment on each count concurrent and concurrent with the
sentences on counts 1, 6 and 8. On count 3 he received a sentence of nine
months’ imprisonment, also concurrent, for indecent assault on a male.
Finally, on count 4 he received a sentence of four years’ imprisonment for
indecent assault on a male. He appeals against sentence with leave of the
single judge.

2.On 9 December 1982, the appellant was made the subject of a care order at
Burton upon Trent Juvenile Court for a number of offences. He was sent to
the Riverside Children’s Home, where he remained until 17 January 1984.

3.In June 1999 police officers began an investigation into allegations of
sexual and physical abuse by former residents of Riverside against members
of the staff who had worked there.  The investigation revealed that a
sadistic and perverted regime was in operation at the Riverside Children’s
Home during the 1980s. Many members of the staff were involved in criminal
acts, and many were subsequently prosecuted.

4.The appellant was one of the older residents at the home. He had also
carried out a number of violent sexual assaults between January 1983 and
February 1984 when he would have been between 15 and 16 years of age. The
assaults were committed against some of the more vulnerable residents and
they were condoned if not encouraged by some members of the staff. Three of
the victims had been assaulted by the appellant before he buggered them.
Another victim had been buggered by the appellant, but he had not been
assaulted by him beforehand. The other offences involved three indecent
assaults by forcing boys to perform oral sex on him. Another offence was
the touching of a boy’s genitalia over his clothing. These offences were
conducted with the assistance of others and were committed on a regular
basis.

5.On 28 June 2001, the appellant was arrested. During his interviews he
mainly declined to comment, but he denied committing buggery on any
individual.

6.The appellant has a number of previous convictions recorded against him.
They include two previous convictions for assault occasioning actual bodily
harm and one for inflicting grievous bodily harm. He has served a number of
prison sentences and has been subjected to a youth custody order. The
longest The pre-sentence report shows that the appellant continued to deny
the offences. It was therefore difficult for the writer of the report to
assess any motivation the appellant might have to change or to desist from
future offending. According to the writer of the report there was a high
risk of re-offending.

7.In sentencing the appellant the judge looked at matters with considerable
and commendable care. He took the view that the court first had to consider
whether it was appropriate to depart from a 12 month starting point, which
was the maximum sentence that could have been imposed on the appellant at
the time of the offences in view of his age. He concluded that the court
was justified in departing from that starting point for a number of
reasons. Those included the length of time over which the offences were
committed as were their systematic and grave nature. He pointed out that
the count of assault with intent to commit buggery would today be
classified as rape, and that count 4 was an act of buggery by submission
rather than by force. The judge approached the matter on the basis that,
although the appellant was not a member of staff, he was “King of the
Castle” so far as the victims were concerned so he was in a protected and
privileged position as against his fellow residents whom he abused. The
judge took the view that the passage of time that had elapsed since the
offences were committed was partly the responsibility of the appellant. The
judge noted that in his subsequent life the appellant had been involved in
criminal activities, although not of a sexual nature. These comprised
mainly violent and public order offences. The judge took the view that the
court had to work from a ceiling of ten years’ imprisonment. He reached the
conclusion that the appropriate sentence was four years’ imprisonment.

8.The grounds of appeal are that the sentence that was imposed on the
appellant was manifestly excessive as insufficient account was taken of a
number of factors such as that the appellant was young at the time of the
offences; that he himself had been corrupted by the regime in force at
Riverside; and that he had not committed any offences of violence since
1992. Mr Dickinson QC, who has pursued the appeal with clear and cogent
submissions on behalf of the appellant, says that the judge erred in
regarding the appellant as being in a position of trust and that he placed
too much weight on his record. However, Mr Dickinson accepts that the judge
was not bound, and nor are we, by a 12 month maximum period.

9.There are a number of very serious aggravating factors in this case.
First, the length of time during which these offences were committed was a
period of about a year, which was a substantial period. Second, it is clear
from the victims’ statements, which we have read, that they were seriously
affected by the appellant’s conduct.

10.There are, however, a number of mitigating factors. First, at the time
when these offences were committed, the appellant was 16 or 17 years of
age. Second, he himself had been a victim of these assaults. Third,
although many of the victims have suffered badly as a result of the
appellant’s conduct, they were also the subject of sexual abuse by members
of staff at Riverside.

11.All these factors presented a very difficult problem for a sentencing
judge. We sympathise with the judge in the exercise he had to perform. We
are very conscious that the trial judge had seen and heard the evidence
during the course of the trial. However, there are some respects in which
we do not take the same approach as the trial judge. We do not consider
that the appellant was in a position of trust. He was one of a number of
residents at Riverside. Although he might have been older than some of the
others, he was not in a position of trust. We attach greater importance
than did the trial judge to the fact that the appellant himself was subject
to serious sexual abuse.

12.In all of the circumstances we have come to the conclusion that this
appellant should not be a long term prisoner. Our view is that the total
sentence that should have been imposed on him was one of three years’
imprisonment. The sentences of four years’ imprisonment on counts 1, 4, 6
and 8 will therefore be reduced to three years’ imprisonment. To that
extent this appeal is allowed.I’

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] Cathy Fox blog 2015 Apr 14 Pindown, Operation Thor and the Cover up of Child Sexual Abuse in Staffordshires Childrens Homes https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/05/14/pindown-operation-thor-and-the-cover-up-of-child-sexual-abuse-in-staffordshires-childrens-homes/

[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 #OpPaedoHunt, Child sexual abuse, Staffordshire and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Timothy John O’Farrell Court of Appeal 21 November 2003

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

  2. Pingback: Pindown, Operation Thor and the cover up of Child Sexual Abuse in Staffordshire’s Childrens Homes | cathyfox blog

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