William Alexander Goad Court of Appeal 12 January 2005

Trigger Warning

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 reading unnecessary detail about themselves or friends, to stop identification of victims and to stop the gratification of those who seek salacious details.

In addition to the obvious “victims redaction”  of personal information about victims, including their ages sometimes, 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 specific charges the perpetrators faced – on which newspapers are pathetically inaccurate and this information enables the links and patterns 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.

This particular appeal had to be redacted substantially as Goad’s crimes were particularly repellent.

Index/Timeline of Court Appeal Documents on Cathy Fox Blog [2]

Index Timeline of Newspaper Articles on Cathy Fox Blog [1]

[2005] EWCA Crim 16

No. 2004/06150/A1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

The Strand

London WC2

Wednesday, 12 January 2005
Before:

Lord Justice Kennedy

Mr Justice Simon and

Mr Justice Bean

Attorney General’s Reference No. 131 of 2004

Under Section 36 of

The Criminal Justice Act 1988

Regina
v.

William Alexander Goad

MR N HILLIARD appeared on behalf of the ATTORNEY GENERAL

MR D BATCUP appeared on behalf of THE OFFENDER

Computer Aided Transcription by Smith Bernal, 190 Fleet Street, London EC4A
Telephone No: 020–7421 4040 (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

JUDGMENT

(As Approved by the Court)

Wednesday 12 January 2005

LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY :

1. Her Majesty’s Solicitor General on behalf of the Attorney General seeks
leave to refer to this court under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act
1988 a sentence which she considers to be unduly lenient. We grant that
leave.

2. The offender is William Alexander Goad, who is now 60 years of age
having been born on 12 July 1944.

3. On 3 September 2004, at Plymouth Crown Court, on re-arraignment he
pleaded guilty to fourteen counts of buggery with a person under the age of
16 and to two counts of indecent assault upon a male person. On 12 March
2004, he had pleaded guilty to one count of obtaining property by
deception, that count featuring in a second indictment.

4. On 4 October 2004, he was sentenced to life imprisonment for each of
the offences of buggery, with an order that he serve six years and two
months imprisonment before being considered for parole. We emphasise those
words. It was not before he be released; it was before he be considered for
parole. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of three years’ imprisonment
for each of the offences of indecent assault and to twelve months’
imprisonment for the offence of obtaining property by deception. He was
also ordered to pay a total of £50,000 towards the prosecution and defence costs. One offence of buggery and one offence of indecent assault was taken into consideration.

5. The period covered by the first indictment extended from about 1966 to
1994. The offending which is the background to the indictment extended from
about 1964 to 1994, a period when the offender was between the ages of 20
and 50 years of age.

6. During that period the offender became a successful businessman in
Plymouth with a city store named Barbican Discounts. He also ran a number
of market stalls. That gave him the opportunity to employ young people and
the resources which he could deploy to obtain what he wanted. One of the
things that he wanted was sexual contact with young boys. That desire may
have stemmed, at least in part, from his own abuse as a child. During the
relevant period from time to time the offender appeared before the courts.
In 1972, for offences of indecency with a child and indecent assault, he
was made the subject of a probation order. In 1980, for indecent assault,
indecency with a child, gross indecency and attempted indecent assault, he
was made the subject of a suspended sentence. In 1987, for three offences
of indecent assault with three other offences being taken into
consideration, he was made the subject of a suspended sentence.

7. However, those offences did not expose the true extent of the
offender’s criminality, as has happened in this case. Most of the offences
in the first indictment are offences of buggery. Many would now be
described as rape because the victim was, as the offender knew, not willing
to take part in the offence.

8. Count 1 concerned a boy “A”. In 1964 or thereabouts, when the offender
was 20 years of age, that boy (then aged 8 or 9) went as a cub to a camping
club which the offender helped to run.[Assault redacted]. Another adult, a man named John, was also involved. [Assault redacted]

9. The victim was also subjected to an incident (count 1 in the
indictment) which, according to him, was the worst experience that he had.
[Assault redacted]

10. Subsequently, the victim of count 1, as he became a teenager, had
problems with alcohol abuse and violence. He is now 4*  years of age [age partial redaction] . It is only in the last four or five years that he has been able to tell anyone
about what happened to him.

11. Count 4 in the indictment is an offence of indecent assault. The
victim “B” was 11 or 12 years of age in 1977 or 1978 when the offender
offered him a job working on market stalls. After a couple of weeks the
offender asked that boy if he would like to go to Birmingham with him one
weekend to collect stock. He spoke to the boy’s parents and they agreed
that the boy could go. [Assault redacted]

12. B still has nightmares. He would not go out for months after the
incident occurred. He had no contact with the offender for some time
thereafter, but [Assault redacted]. He went to the police in August 2003 after reading of
the offender’s arrest. Up to then he had told no one what had happened to
him. He is now 3* years of age. [age partial redaction]

13. Count 5 concerns another offence [Assault redaction] with a boy “C”. He was
about 14 in 1979–1980 when a school friend of his told him that someone
wanted to meet him after school. The offender pulled up in a white van. [Assault redacted]. C told no one of the detail of that offence until the police began this inquiry.

14. The offender offered C weekend work and a job when he left school,
telling him that his job was to keep the offender happy. [Assault redacted] Eventually he heard of the offender’s return to England just before his arrest. He said that he was then unable to sleep. He was 3* years of age [age partial redaction] . He said, “I have tried to shut it out for years and I did for a while, but it keeps coming back up and it hasn’t
totally gone away”.

15. Counts 6 and 7 are two offences [Assault redaction] with a boy “D”. D was
introduced to the offender in about 1982 when he was about 14 years of age
by someone named Z. The offender offered him a job and paid him £10 per
day. After about two weeks he took D to a store in Plymouth and told him
that he knew his mother was very ill and that if D did not do as the
offender required, she would be hurt. [Assault redacted]

16. Count 6 occurred when the boy returned. He was crying and very upset,
[Assault redacted] By this time the man named John had joined them. On the way
downstairs John said to D that if he told anyone his mother would be “done
over”, that no one would believe him and that the offender had contacts
with the police force.

17. After that first incident the offender sexually assaulted D four or
five times a week over a period of two years. He often took him away for
the weekend to help on market stalls. Whenever he did so, the boy was
abused. On one occasion the offender called at his home and went away
laughing, saying how easy it would have been to have hurt the boy’s mother.

18. Count 7 related to an incident which occurred in a flat at Taunton or
Torquay, when a man who claimed to be a Scout Master was present. [Assault redacted]

19. The last occasion on which the offender abused D was at his warehouse. [Assault redacted] On the following day the boy left his school and his
home. He believed that if he went away the offender would not be able to
find him and his mother would be safe.

20. D is now 3* years of age [age partial redaction]. He says that his life has been a nightmare and that the offender took his life away from him. He has suffered from
depression and he has abused drugs.

21. Counts 8 and 9 relate to two offences of [assault redaction] with another boy “E”.
He was introduced to the offender by his elder brother D, who was the
subject of counts 6 and 7. At the time E was 8 years of age. [Assault redacted]

22. On another occasion E was walking through Plymouth with friends. They
met the offender, who gave each of then £1. He saw the offender as a man
who could buy what he wanted, including protection. He remembers the
offender throwing free toys from a lorry at the market. The boy said, “He
was buying me, befriending me, making out he was a friend”.

23. At the age of 9 or 10 E was employed on market stalls. Count 8
concerns an incident when he was taking down a stall and loading it into
the offender’s white van. [Assault redacted] Goad and another man.

24. On another occasion the offender took E to Birmingham, where he asked
him to snatch a child and to that end drove through housing estates,
identifying victims. Suffice it to say that E was not prepared to
co-operate and mercifully no victim was snatched.

25. On one trip to Birmingham the offender booked into a hotel. E and
another boy were told to wait outside and in due course enter the room
through the window, which they did. [Assault redacted] On their return to Plymouth the offender spent £150 on the two boys.

26. Count 9 concerned the same victim when he was 13 years of age.[Assault redacted] The room had mirrors and the boy thought that the offender had filmed what he did.

27. [Assault redacted] 2 men. Afterwards E was given a pair of jeans.

28. On another occasion eight or nine boys were seen by the police but all,
for reasons which by now must be obvious, denied that the offender had done
anything to them.

29. The offender dominated by fear. He carried a plastic bottle which he
said contained ammonia, which he threatened to squirt in anyone’s face if
they came to his window.

30. E also alleged that the offender supplied him with Class A drugs.

31. E is now 2* years of age [age partial redaction] . He has suffered from depression, anxiety, panic attacks and invasive thoughts. He has been involved in criminal
behaviour and drug abuse —all since he was abused by the offender.

32. Count 11 is an offence of [assault redaction] of a boy “F”. In about 1984, when F
was 12 or 13, he and a friend were playing when the offender pulled up in a
sports car. The friend went to speak to the offender and then asked F to
join him. F recalls sitting in the car and being told by the offender that
he owned Barbican Discounts. He asked F if he wanted a job. When he said
“Yes”, the offender said he would be in touch. In due course F was told by
his friend to go and meet the offender at a warehouse behind a particular
street. When he did so, there were a lot of other boys there. He discussed
working for the offender, but said he would have to have his mother’s
consent. His mother said, prudently, that she wished to meet the offender
first. The offender was happy to meet her, and apparently did so. K began
to work for the offender. His recollection is that working for the offender
was fun. He gave the boys sweets and drinks. He gave them gifts, he took
them for meals and he used to talk to F about taking him to Disney in
America. F said, “We were surrounded by other boys, some our own age, some
older.”

33. The offender’s first sexual approach to him..[Assault redacted]

34. On another occasion [Assault redacted]

35. Count 11 concerned an incident when the offender asked F to a house,
where there was an older boy. [Assault redacted]

36. F never went back to work for the offender because “he had hurt him
that much”. But eighteen months later a boy whom F knew told him, “You’re
not going to say nothing. You know what could happen to you. You know he
knows the Mafia”.

37. Count 12 concerned another boy “G”. In 1984 or 1985 he was 10 or 11
years of age and attending a boarding school. One of his friends was “H”,
the subject of another count in the indictment. H was already someone
known to the offender. The offender asked H to bring G along, which he
did. The offender collected the boys at an arcade and drove them to some
woods. [Assault redacted]

38. G first attempted suicide at the age of 13, a couple of years later.
Thereafter, he abused drugs and alcohol. He has made progress since he was
interviewed about the sexual offences that he suffered. He is now 2* years
of age [age partial redaction].

39. Count 13 is [Assault redacted] in relation to H. The offender knew
H’s parents. He had visited their home. He used to bring H presents and
toys. In about 1985–1986, about six months after meeting H (who was then 9
years of age), the offender and another man saw him walking along the
street as they drove by. The other man asked H whether he fancied earning
some extra money, saying to him, “You don’t have to do anything”. H agreed
and got into the car. [Assault redacted]

40. Some time later, the offender took H to see his (the offender’s) new
home. [Assault redacted]

41. As will be recalled, H recruited G, the victim in the preceding
count. He was present and saw the offender offending against G in the
woods.

42. The offender was not entirely satisfied with his encounter with G and
told H that he never wanted to see that boy again. However, he identified
another boy whom he wanted H procure for him. When H failed, he shouted
and swore at him, saying that he wanted that other boy.

43. In October 1997, when the police inquiry was under way, H, who was
then 21 years of age, was accosted by men, one of whom had a sawn-off
shotgun. H was told, “The police can protect you until you give evidence,
but after the trial you are on your own.” He was told they could get him
and his wife. He was told to go to court and to claim that a named police
officer had put words in his mouth. The offender’s name was not mentioned
by the men; nor was he present.

44. H began committing criminal offences at the age of 13. By the age of
14 he was earning money as a male prostitute. He became addicted to drugs
and attempted suicide on many occasions. H says that he cannot stop the
nightmares, going over and over again what the offender did to him. He says
that sometimes he wishes he had been killed rather than left with the
torture of the memories and the nightmares.

45. Count 14 concerns [assault redaction] of another boy “J”. He was recruited for the
offender by a boy named Y (who is not the subject of any count on the
indictment), who said to him that there was a job going. In about 1987,
when J was aged 11 or 12, he was invited to the offender’s home and shown
around.[Assault redacted]. That was in the presence of another boy. J heard a click. On the way to his home the offender told him that the other boy had taken photographs and that if he told the police or anyone else the photographs would be sent to his parents.

46. The same happened a few days later, after which J was given cash in
addition to his wages. The offender told him that that was for keeping his
mouth shut.

47. J introduced another boy to the offender. Later, that boy said that J
might have told him that the offender was “queer”. The boy suggested that
they both (he and J) go to the police. But conscious of what the offender
had said about the photographs, J refused. The other boy nevertheless
complained to the police, who then questioned J. He said that the other
boy was lying. Later the offender gave J, then aged 12, £300 and thanked
him for covering for him.

48. The offender appears to have abused J at his home over a period of
about six months, and on each occasion paid him money. He also assaulted J
at Barbican Discounts and [Assault redacted]
Eventually, according to J, he had had enough. He told the offender that
he could send the photographs if he wished. The offender then said that
there were no photographs. That boy became a drug addict. He tried to
commit suicide. He attributes his problems to the offender. He is now 2*
years of age. [age partial redaction]

49. Count 15 relates to the buggery of a young man K. K was introduced
to the offender by E, the victim in counts 8 and 9. E was paid for the
introduction. K went with E and the offender on a trip to Birmingham. All
three stayed in a motel and shared the one bed in which the offender
[assault redaction] his victims. [Assault redacted] K said, “I was terrified of him. He twisted everything to be my fault. He is an evil man with a clever mind”. He claims
that his life has been devastated by the offender. He became involved with drug and
alcohol abuse and with crime to fund his addictions. He has suffered from
paranoia and depression. He is now 2* years of age. [age partial redaction]

50. Count 16 is an offence of indecent assault on a young man “L”. He had
a troubled home life and was a difficult youngster. By the time he was 11
or 12 he was resident in a children’s home. He remembers the offender
hanging around outside the home. He reached the age of 17 in 1990  .By that stage he was wayward. A friend of his suggested that the offender could
provide them with work. He took L to meet the offender, who supplied them,
according to him, with counterfeit goods to sell. At the outset the
offender warned [Assault redacted], “I have got powerful friends in high places. I can get
my hands on guns if people upset me”.

51. Count 16 relates to an incident which occurred a couple of weeks later
when L visited the offender again. He was told, “You can earn money by
doing other things. I’ve loads of people who do it for me.” He explained
that he paid £50 for buggery, £20 for oral sex and £15 for masturbation. He
added, “I don’t usually go for boys your age, but I make exceptions”. [Assault redacted]. He was given money, which he spent on cannabis. A couple of weeks later there was a similar incident.

52. Count 17 concerned an offence of [assault redacted] on a young man “M”. In about 1989 that young man was 13 years of age when another two young men called
at his home and asked if he would be interested in earning money by
delivering leaflets. He spoke to his mother, who agreed. He ran after the
boys who had called to say he was interested. Nearby was the offender in
his car. Soon M was working for the offender on market stalls. According
to the victim, he built up trust. The next thing that he knew, he had gone
to the offender’s house. In the house was a room where the offender
provided drinks, and another room where the boys could play on a computer.
There were always boy at the house. [Assault redacted]

53. Count 17 related to abuse which lasted for three and a half years. It
occurred between one and four times a week. [Assault redacted] It
happened in his home, on trips to Birmingham, Bristol or Cornwall, at
Barbican Discounts and elsewhere in Plymouth.

54. Eventually, in 1992, when he reached 16 and a half, M went to Scotland
to get away from the offender  . As he put it, it was the furthest that he could go without a passport. He is someone else who says that he has
contemplated suicide and that the offender has had a catastrophic effect on
his life.

55. Count 18 relates to another offence of [Assault redaction] on a young man “N”. In
1992, when he was 14, he went with his mother to Barbican Discounts. She was looking for curtains. The offender saw him and offered him evening and weekend work, for which he was paid £15 or £20. He was then invited to go to the offender’s home. Other boys who worked for the offender (as many as ten at a time) would be at the house, often playing computer games.[Assault redacted] That happened on a further three or four occasions.

56. Some weeks later [Assault redacted]. He is now 2* years of age.[age partial redaction]

57. Count 19, the final offence of [Assault redacted] in the indictment, concerned a
young man “P”. In 1994 he was 13 years of age when he was introduced to
the offender by a friend who took him to the offender’s house. Once again P recites how there were soft drinks, sweets and a large bottle of coins
to which boys (up to ten at any given time) could help themselves. The
offender asked him if he wanted a job, to which he said, “Yes”, referring
to a job such as loading vans. The offender said that there was not a job
like that available. He asked P if he was gay and if he would like to be
the offender’s boyfriend. The offender pulled a roll of cash from his
pocket and offered that 13 year old boy £20 for a “blow job” and £50 for
anal sex. P later discovered that the friend who introduced him to the offender had been paid £50 for the introduction.

58. Some weeks later P and the same friend went with the offender for two
days. [Assault redacted]

59. The incident in count 19 occurred when P was 13 years of age. By that
time he was using amphetamine, and the offender was providing the funds to
enable him to buy it. When he wanted £50 to go to a rave, [Assault redacted]
He was frequently warned by the offender never to go to the police, and
threatened with publicity and violence if he were to do so.

60. In addition to those counts in the indictment to which we have
specifically referred and to which the offender pleaded guilty, the
offender asked for there to be taken into consideration an offence in
relation to a young man “Q”, who was [Assault redacted] by the offender over a four
year period between 1979 and 1983 and who was at the start of that period
13 years of age. He also asked for there to be taken into consideration an
offence against a young man “R”, aged 15, who was indecently assaulted by
the offender in 1984. The offender gave him a job on a market stall [Assault redacted]

61. By 1998 the police were investigating, not for the first time, the
offender’s activities. He apparently learned what was going on and then on
7 June 1998 applied for a passport in a false name. That was the offence
which was the subject matter of the count in the second indictment. The
offender went abroad and it was known that he was living in Thailand.
However, he returned to the United Kingdom and was arrested on 4 June 2003.
At the time he was travelling on a train. When arrested he said to the officers, “What chance has a man got if some little junkie accuses him of sexually abusing them after 15
years? They’re just after compensation. That’s what’s it’s all about.”

62. By that time the offender was not physically well. After his arrest he
underwent heart surgery. He was interviewed, but declined to answer
questions. He read a statement in which he denied the allegations. However,
having been arrested initially on 4 June 2003, on 3 September 2004, on
re-arraignment he pleaded guilty to the substance of the indictment.

63. Mr Hilliard on behalf of the Solicitor General submits that there are
aggravating features about this matter to which the court must have regard.
There were fourteen victims, who were all young. The offences were
repeated. They occurred over a very long period of time. It can be seen
that the offender used other boys to procure victims for him. He threatened
his victims with violence. He also corrupted them by paying money to them
and providing them with other benefits. Some of them were employed by him.
Many of them suffered terrible consequences as a result of his abuse. As we
have already indicated, during this period the offender had been convicted
on occasions of offences against the young.

64. On his behalf it can be said —as has been most persuasively said in
this court by Mr Batcup —that the offender is entitled to a proper
allowance for his plea of guilty, even if it was somewhat late in the day,
because that plea saved the victims of these offences from having to relive
what happened to them many years ago. The discount offered, and granted by
the sentencing judge, was plainly less than it would have been had the plea
been at an earlier stage. That, Mr Batcup accepts, was in the circumstances
appropriate. Furthermore, the sentencing judge had before him documents
which we have read, which show that the offender did many good things,
including raising substantial sums of money for charity, and thus earned
the esteem of many of his fellow citizens. The offender had apparently been
a victim of sexual abuse when young. By the time he came to be sentenced he
was not only 60 years of age, but also in poor health. Furthermore, as we
are told, since he has been in custody he has been the victim of considerable physical abuse, to the extent that he is currently in hospital receiving treatment for
the effects of that abuse.

65. It is not contended, nor could it be contended, on behalf of the
Solicitor General that the sentence of life imprisonment imposed in respect
of each of the offences of buggery was unduly lenient. The sole contention
relates to the fixing of the minimum term, an exercise which the sentencing
judge had to perform in relation to those sentences in order to decide when
the offender should first be considered by the Parole Board.

70. In order to fix the minimum term a judge has to discount any question
of future risk to the public. So the exercise is intrinsically different
from that which is carried out when a judge is passing a determinate
sentence. That is important in the context of this case. The sentencing
judge fixed the minimum term by starting with the proposition that if he were sentencing in relation to those offences of buggery the determinate element of the life
sentence would be 18 years. From that, he made a deduction of three years
(or one-sixth) to take account of the plea of guilty. He was then required
by law, as he explained, to reduce that figure by half to take account of
the element of remission and to deduct from it 16 months, which the
offender had by then spent on remand, which left a sentence of six years
and two months. In his sentencing remarks the judge continued thus:

“That means, that whatever else you will serve that sentence before there
is any consideration of parole. But I make it as plain as I can to you and
others that may be listening, that you will not be released until the
authorities are perfectly satisfied that you no longer pose any threat to
anyone, particularly children. But it may well mean in your case that life
may mean just that.”

71. Did the judge err? Mr Hilliard submits that he did because he should
not have started with a figure of 18 years, or discounted it to the extent
that, after allowing for the plea of guilty, it was 15 years. Mr Hilliard
submits that, after discount, the figure should have been 20 years. He
invites our attention to the decision of this court in * R v Bellamy * [2001]
1 Cr App R(S) 116 by way of some support for that proposition.

72. We have considered that authority. We have also considered two other
authorities to which our attention has been helpfully invited by Mr Batcup.
In * R v M and M * [2000] 1 Cr App R(S) 296 , this court was concerned with
an appeal from the same sentencing judge, where the
offending was, if anything, even more grave and the offenders had contested
the matter. They were a husband and wife aged 68 and 67, who were convicted
of numerous counts of rape, buggery and indecent assault in relation to
their own children over a period of 13 years between 1961 and 1974, and
their grandchildren between 1982 and 1995. The victims were subjected to
vaginal and anal intercourse and oral sex, and a variety of objects
including razor blades and knitting needles were inserted into their
bodies. The male offender was sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment —not to
life imprisonment.

So that sentence took account of the risk of future offending. It may be
said that, having regard to his age, that risk would not be so great by the
time that he came to be released. But nevertheless it provides a yardstick
in deciding whether or not the approach adopted by the sentencing judge in
the present case was correct.

73. We have also had our attention invited to * R v Alden and Wright * [2001]
2 Cr App R(S) 401 . That case concerned a house master of an approved
school, who was convicted of buggery and indecent assault committed against
boys between 1967 and 1984. A period of 15 years’ imprisonment was imposed.
He was a man in a position of trust.

74. If Mr Hilliard’s submissions were correct, it would have at the end of
the day this effect. It would mean that a further two and a half years
would elapse before this case was first considered by the Parole Board.
Whether or not that is an appropriate matter to bring before this court by
way of an Attorney General’s reference may be a matter for debate. But we
are wholly satisfied that it has not been shown at the end of the day that
the careful sentencing exercise carried out by this judge in relation to
these extremely grave offences was in any way in error. As the judge made
clear, and as we make clear, this offender has been sentenced to life
imprisonment. He will not be released until the authorities are perfectly
satisfied that he no longer poses a threat to anyone, particularly
children. So in his case life may mean just that.

75. In a number of years time, calculated in the way that the judge has indicated, the
offender’s case will be reviewed by the Parole Board. So it should be. This
application is 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] 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/

[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, cathy fox blog, Child sexual abuse, Devon and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to William Alexander Goad Court of Appeal 12 January 2005

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

  2. l8in says:

    Reblogged this on L8in.

  3. Pingback: William Alexander Goad Court of Appeal 12 January 2005 | cathyfox blog | fighting for the rights of childrens human rights

  4. Pingback: £Timeline of a Child Rapist 4 – William Alexander Goad | cathy fox blog

  5. Pingback: COMMANDER CHARLES ARTHUR HOWESON – colleague of Prince Philip and Prince Charles – charged with buggery | goodnessandharmony

  6. Pingback: NSPCC and Childline – Whom Do They Protect? | goodnessandharmony

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