Roger Charles Augustine Gleaves 2nd February 1989 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. 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]

[ 1989] EWCA Crim J0202-5

No. 7444/E1/87

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

Thursday, 2nd February 1989
Before:

Lord Justice Taylor

Mr. Justice McNeil

and

Mr. Justice Garland

Regina
v.

Roger Charles Augustine Gleaves

(Transcript of the Shorthand Notes of Marten Walsh Cherer Ltd., Pemberton
House, East Harding Street, London, EC4A 3AS. Telephone Number: 01-583
7635. Shorthand Writers to the Court.)

MR. C. CUTTING appeared on behalf of the Appellant.

JUDGMENT

(As approved by Judge)

LORD JUSTICE TAYLOR : On 2nd November, 1987, in the Snaresbrook Crown
Court, this appellant pleaded guilty to 12 counts of obtaining property by
deception. He asked for no fewer than 290 offences to be taken into
consideration. The case was adjourned that day to allow a certificate to be
served, showing that a notice of previous convictions had been served upon
the appellant, with a view to an extended sentence. On 13th November, 1987,
he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment on each count concurrently,
that sentence being certified as an extended sentence. He now appeals
against sentence by leave of the single judge.

These 12 counts were merely specimens, as the large number of other
offences taken into consideration makes plain, of a continued course of
conduct and that conduct took place between 8th February, 1986 and 12th
November, 1986. These over 300 offences were committed against the Post
Office National Savings Bank. They were well planned offences. The
appellant had a detailed knowledge of Post Office procedures and he
conceived a scheme which enabled him to draw a great deal of money from the
Post Office before he was finally brought to book. Moreover, this was not
the first time that he had done it. In respect of these offences, he netted
some £14,000. He had used a number of Post Office savings books and he had
done precisely the same thing in an earlier period. In September, 1982 the
Post Office had become aware that a number of National Savings bank
accounts were being fraudulently operated. In a joint operation by the
police and the Post Office, which took a great deal of time and cost
a great deal of money, 27 fraudulent accounts were discovered. The
appellant was arrested and, on 8th February, 1985, he was sentenced to
three years’ imprisonment. He had, so it was said, acquired some £35,000 in
the course of that series of offences. Counsel on his behalf today tells us
that it was only £26,000 and we are prepared to accept that. It was enough,
in all conscience. Most of the cheque books and deposit books that he had
used in relation to those offences were not recovered. The appellant served
his sentence and was released on 30th January, 1986, which, considering
that he received three years and was only sentenced in February, 1985, was
fairly swift. Even swifter was his resumption of exactly the same conduct
because he came out on 30th January and he was at it again on 7th February.
It is in respect of the next few months after that that these offences were
charged.

The appellant took some of the books that were still in his possession from
the first series of offences and proceeded to commit further offences with
them, and also to use other books. The method which he operated was this.
He would open an account in a ficticious name. He would pay in worthless
cheques to the account and the unsuspecting cashier, thinking that he had
enriched the account by these cheques, would have no suspicion when he drew
on the same occasion £50. He never drew more than £50, because had he done
so, the rules of the Post Office would have required that his book was
taken in and examined before it was returned to him, and that of course he
did not
want to happen. So he went round the whole of the south of England, drawing
£50 out of accounts all over the place in this way. It was a measure of his
success that he managed to do it enough times to get over £26,000 in the
first series of offences and over £14,000 in the second.

He is a man of 56. He had six previous convictions for dishonesty, buggery,
indecent assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He had been
dealt with by way of approved school and six sentences of imprisonment,
five of them immediate. In 1981 he had been sentenced to 18 months’
imprisonment for obtaining property by deception. That was a different kind
of offence, but it was not wholly dissimilar in that it was fraudulent.
What happened there was that he obtained money from the DHSS to which he
was not entitled, something of the order of £2,000.

The learned judge took the view that this was a course of conduct,
particularly the last two matters, which called for his consideration as to
whether an extended sentence ought to be passed and accordingly, as we have
said, he adjourned the case for that purpose. The notices were served and
the three offences which appeared on the notice were an offence of buggery
and assault in 1975, for which the sentence was 18 months’ imprisonment,
the DHSS fraud in 1981, for which he received 18 months’ imprisonment, and
the first series of Post Office offences, for which he received three
years’ imprisonment in February, 1985. The learned judge took the view that
this was a case for an extended sentence, and so he passed the sentence of
five years.

On this appeal, Mr. Cutting has made a number of points in support of his
contention that this ought not to have been an extended sentence of five
years. He says that it ought to have been an ordinary sentence of four
years. First of all, it is said that the learned judge did not approach
this sentence, as a matter of principle, in the right way. Mr. Cutting
submits that, as one of the qualifying sentences on the notice was not a
sentence in respect of fraud, but was a sentence in respect of buggery, the
true spirit of the statute in regard to extended sentences, should have
dictated that this was not an appropriate case. His argument comes to this:
that all the qualifying sentences should be of the same nature so that the
judge passes an extended sentence in respect of three manifestations of a
propensity to commit a particular kind of offence, which would then justify
him in saying that he would be preventing this appellant from going on to
commit the same kind of offence again.

This is to misunderstand the statute, in our judgment. The statute requires
that certain qualifying conditions apply before the judge is empowered to
consider an extended sentence. Those are clearly laid down and there is no
suggestion that they are not satisfied in this case. The notice was served
and the three sentences which were contained in it properly qualified under
the statute. So this man then became eligible for an extended sentence. The
judge then had to consider whether it was appropriate to pass an extended
sentence. In doing that, he made it
clear that the only matters that he was looking at were the fraudulent
offences which constitutes the recent history. He came to the conclusion
that, having regard to the number of these offences (although they only
involved two court appearances, there were hundreds of offences) conduct
which was immediately resumed within days of being released from the first
sentence, this was a proper case for an extended sentence. We see nothing
wrong in principle in that approach.

It is said that the learned judge attached too much significance to the
1981 DHSS conviction because that did not involve exactly the same modus
operandi as the later two. We have already indicated that one does not have
to have precision of similar facts in order to justify imposing an extended
sentence.

It is then said that the offences were really a sort of game that this
appellant was playing with the police. He was an embittered man. His
earlier sexual offences had caused the press to pillory him as a man who
was suitable to be publicised whenever he appeared, and he became so
bitter, it is said, that he indulged in these offences, as some sort of
game with the authorities. We do not consider this as a game and we are not
impressed by that argument.

It is then said that the learned judge did not give sufficient credit for
the guilty plea. In the course of passing sentence, the judge began to say
that this man had not pleaded guilty until a very late stage. Counsel who
then
appeared, who is not counsel appearing before us today, stood up and
pointed out to the learned judge that the appellant had intended to plead
guilty for some time, and it was only on legal advice that he had not
specifically recorded a plea of guilty until the stage that he did. The
learned judge said: “Very well, I will put that matter out of my judgment
then and deal with it as though the defendant had pleaded guilty, as he
did.” There is nothing in that point.

Another point made is that this appellant claims to have given assistance
to the Surrey Constabulary. Whilst he was in prison he made a statement
implicating another prisoner, who was in the same cell about some sexual
offences. It is said that he did not receive proper credit for that from
the learned judge. There are two answers to that: first, the learned judge
did refer to it and did give some credit for it. He said that he regarded
it as earnest of this man’s claim to have turned over a new leaf and
wanting to be of assistance. But we also have the advantage over the
learned judge of having before us a letter from the police, which makes it
quite clear that the information given was not used, and there is no
suggestion in the letter that it was in any way helpful. In those
circumstances, this point is not one which is of any weight.

We have considered all these arguments and others which have been raised by
Mr. Cutting, and we can see no reason to fault the learned judge’s decision
or the sentence which he passed. Accordingly, 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. 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 #OpPaedoHunt, Child sexual abuse, Paedophilia around Piccadilly and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Roger Charles Augustine Gleaves 2nd February 1989 Court of Appeal

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

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

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

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

  5. 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