Raymond Colin Hawthorne. Nathan Oliver Eyre. Court of Appeal 19th April 2005

Raymond Colin Hawthorne. Nathan Oliver Eyre. Court of Appeal 19th April 2005

Hawthorne and Eyre were pimps and Hawthorne was featured in the File on 4 Programme Paedophiles [3] part of which was in Manchester, part was on William Goad. They were child sex abusers. (Any links between any of these child sex offenders would be gratefully received)

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.

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

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

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.

[2005] EWCA Crim 1059 1

[2005] EWCA Crim 1059

No: 200405798/5799/A9

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London, WC2

Tuesday, 19th April 2005

Before:

Lord Justice Kennedy

Mr Justice Treacy

His Honour Judge Moss QC

(Sitting as a Judge of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division)

Reference by the Attorney General Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988

Attorney-general’s Reference No 122 and 123 of 2004

Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of Smith Bernal Wordwave

Limited 190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020

7831 8838 (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

MR B ALTMAN appeared on behalf of the ATTORNEY GENERAL

MR C M BATTY appeared on behalf of the OFFENDER EYRE

MISS K BLACKWELL appeared on behalf of the OFFENDER HAWTHORNE

JUDGMENT

(As approved by the Court)

1. LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY : So far as the matter of Eyre and Hawthorne is

concerned, we think it only right, because the judgment which is about to

be delivered is likely to be of a little length, to tell both men what the

outcome will be. So far as Eyre is concerned, on this indictment the

sentence ultimately will be one of 11 years to be served consecutively to

the five years imposed at Bolton and so far as Hawthorne is concerned the

sentence on this indictment ultimately will be one of nine years’

imprisonment.

2. HM Attorney Generals seeks the leave of this Court to refer to the Court

sentences which he considers to be unduly lenient and we grant that leave.

3. Nathan Oliver Eyre is 39 years of age, having been born on 21st January

1966. Raymond Colin Hawthorne is 41 years of age, having been born on 22nd

February 1964. Over the course of 9th and 10th September 2004, at the

beginning of what was to have been their trial, the offenders pleaded

guilty to a series of offences. There were 17 offences to which they

pleaded guilty in an indictment which contained 32 counts. Eyre pleaded

guilty to counts 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8, all of which concerned him alone. Counts

1, 2 and 3 each charged him with making an indecent photograph of a child.

Count 7 alleged indecency with a child named B by inciting that child under

the age of 16 to commit an act of gross indecency with an unknown male.

Count 8 alleged living on B’s earnings as a male prostitute. Count 13

charged both Eyre and Hawthorne with conspiracy to live on B’s earnings as

a male prostitute. Both of them pleaded guilty to that count. Hawthorne

also pleaded guilty to count 14, which alleged that he abducted B, count

16, indecency with a child, in which it was asserted that he incited B to

commit an act of gross indecency with an unknown male, and he also pleaded

guilty to count 17, living wholly or partly on B’s earnings as a prostitute

and to counts 18, 19, 20 and 21, living wholly or partly on the

prostitution earnings of a girl named Martina (count 18), a man named Liam

(count 19), a man named Stephen (count 20), and a man named Peter (count

21). Finally, Hawthorne pleaded guilty to four counts of conspiracy to

commit indecent assault on males under the age of 16. Those were counts 29

to 32 and each charged conspiracy with a different person.

4. On 14th September 2004 Eyre was sentenced to a total of eight years’

imprisonment made up as follows: in respect of counts 1, 2 and 3 there was

no separate penalty; for count 7 the sentence was two years and a half

years’ imprisonment; for count 8 five years’ imprisonment; and for count 13

three years’ imprisonment. It was ordered that the sentences on counts 8

and 13 be served consecutively, but that the sentence on count 7 be served

concurrently, making eight years in all to commence at the conclusion of a

sentence of five years’ imprisonment imposed at Bolton on 31st August 2004

for offences of dishonesty.

5. On the same day, 14th September 2004, Hawthorne was sentenced to a total

of seven years’ imprisonment, that sentence being made up as follows: count

13, three years’ imprisonment; count 14, one year’s imprisonment; count 14

two and a half years’ imprisonment; count 17, four years’ imprisonment;

counts 18 to 21, two years’ imprisonment; and counts 29 to 32, no separate

penalty. The sentences on counts 14 and 17 were ordered to be served

consecutively, the sentences on counts 18 to 21 were

ordered to be served concurrently with each other, but consecutively to the

sentences on counts 14 and 17, and the remaining sentences were ordered to

be served concurrently.

6. Additionally the offenders were disqualified from working with children,

sexual offences prevention orders were made in the case of each offender

and each was reminded of the requirement to register under the provisions

of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

7. In summary over a period of time the first offender Eyre was alleged to

have groomed and corrupted the male victim, B, from when he was 13 years of

age for the sole purpose of exploiting him as a prostitute. Eyre incited B

to commit acts of indecency with men for money, including acts of buggery.

B was subsequently sold by Eyre to Hawthorne so that he could put him into

prostitution in another part of the country for his own purposes. B

continued to be exploited. Hawthorne incited him to commit acts of

indecency with men for money. At the same time Hawthorne was living on the

earnings of other young prostitutes and was arranging with other men for

the prostitution of an under age boy. As to counts 1 to 3, concealed in

Eyre’s flat at the time of his arrest were a number of level 1 indecent

images of children.

8. B was born on [redacted] 1989 and had lived in Leeds for most of his

life. Eyre’s relationship with B began in 2002. B was one of a number of

local boys, aged between 12 and 15, whom Eyre would encourage to visit him

in his flat in Leeds. B was 12 when he first met Eyre and he visited Eyre’s

flat thereafter almost daily. Eyre would allow the children into his home

when they were truanting from school. B would be supplied with alcohol,

cigarettes and drugs in the form of cannabis and poppers. Eyre would cook

for him and treat him to meals from McDonald’s. He would take him out and

allowed him to drive his car and to shoot with his air rifle. The treats

which B enjoyed were free. According to a consultant paediatrician, part of

whose report we have seen, B had a history of both medical and emotional

problems which made him especially vulnerable to Eyre’s paedophilic

attentions. Eyre would regularly encourage B to truant from school and

would write a note for him. Eyre also presented himself as a mentor to B.

He claimed a background in child psychology. He would advise B when there

were conflicts between B and his mother. He would get B so drunk on

occasions that Eyre would have to put him to bed.

9. B was gradually introduced to sexual behaviour. Eyre would play

pornographic videos for B to watch. Eyre was himself a prostitute with

fellow homosexuals and B was encouraged by Eyre to contact gay chatlines

and to remain in the flat when Eyre was servicing his clients.

10. As the grooming process went on B’s behaviour at home deteriorated. The

more his parents sought to challenge his behaviour, the more time B would

spend with Eyre. B’s mother eventually made the connection with Eyre and

warned B that Eyre was grooming him. She tried to make him stop seeing

Eyre, but B understandably, perhaps having regard to his age and the

inducements which were offered, failed to heed the warning.

11. B began to work for Eyre as a male prostitute. It began when B got

drunk one might at Eyre’s flat and [act redacted] a man whose name

we need not give. What B did was then used by Eyre to blackmail B into

becoming a male prostitute working for Eyre in Leeds. That in essence was

the background to counts 7 and 8.

12. The services included [redacted] with clients. B described how

he was treated, as he put it, “like a rag doll”, and how he would [redacted]. On one occasion B was in effect [assault redacted]

by a customer who had to be pulled off B by Eyre. Count 8, living on B’s

earnings as a prostitute, encompassed the overall picture of Eyre’s

offending in that regard. Count 7 was opened and accepted to be a specimen

count of the occasions when Eyre incited B to engage in acts of gross

indecency by providing sexual services.

13. Eyre met Hawthorne probably through a gay chatline. During the first

week of October 2003 they reached an agreement, which was reflected in

count 13, that B would be put to work as a prostitute for the benefit of

them both, but at the direction of Hawthorne. On Thursday 23rd October 2003

Eyre met B and told him to skip school the following day as they were going

to see some of Eyre’s friends. He was told to turn up at Eyre’s flat in

school uniform and to bring with him a change of clothes. That evening

Hawthorne sent a text message to Eyre informing him that he already had

four clients for him “to do”. Eyre was asked to ensure that B was wearing a

tracksuit and to look as young as possible. It was indicated to Eyre that B

would get £40 a session, which would come to £160, and any tips he received

he would be allowed to keep; the main money, of course, going to Hawthorne

and Eyre.

14. On that Friday morning, 24th October 2003, B set off from home

apparently to go to school. He went to Eyre’s flat where he got changed.

From there Eyre drove him to a rendezvous in Bradford. There he met

Hawthorne and Hawthorne handed to Eyre a large wad of money. B got into

Hawthorne’s car in the belief that Eyre was going to follow behind. He

found sitting in Hawthorne’s car a teenage girl named Martina. It was only

apparently as Hawthorne drove to the outskirts of London that B came to

realise that Eyre had tricked him. Count 13 reflected the agreement between

Eyre and Hawthorne to sell B to Hawthorne for prostitution. Count 14

reflected the abduction by Hawthorne in taking B off with a qualification

as a result of the basis of plea to which we will later refer. On that same

day, 24th October, Eyre sent a number of text messages to a police officer,

with whom he was in contact, setting out his cover story in case the true

nature of what he and Hawthorne were doing should be revealed.

15. Hawthorne drove B and Martina direct to London to service a client who

wanted them both. That night B and Martina provided sexual services to the

same man four or five times. In B’s case that involved [assault redacted]. Later

Hawthorne drove them back to his home in the Eccles district of Manchester.

Over the course of the next seven days B was used by Hawthorne to service

many clients in many different parts of the country.

16. In his video interviews B described the many occasions when he provided

sexual services. Count 17 encompassed the overall picture of Hawthorne’s

offending. Those services included [assaults redacted].

Count 16 was opened and accepted to be a specimen count of the many

occasions when Hawthorne incited B to engage in such acts by providing

sexual services.

17. Hawthorne lived on the earnings of four young prostitutes who worked

for him. They included Martina, who was the subject of count 18, Liam her

brother, the subject of count 19, Stephen the subject of count 20, all of

them being teenagers although over the age of 16, and Peter the subject of

count 21 who was 20. The four of them lived together with Hawthorne in a

rented bungalow in Eccles. Hawthorne was a practising homosexual and Peter

was his partner. Hawthorne negotiated and received payment for sexual

services which he arranged. In October 2003 before B appeared Hawthorne

informed Peter that a man in Leeds was grooming a young boy to come and

work for him.

18. B, of course, was reported as missing. The police saw Eyre at his flat

on Saturday 25th October 2003, that is to say the day after B had been

taken to London. Eyre claimed that he had not spoken to B for a couple of

days and that he was concerned for his welfare. In fact Eyre had been in

contact with B in Manchester by telephone. B had complained to him that he

was being abused, but Eyre insisted that Hawthorne would not hurt him. B

asked Eyre to come and collect him, but Eyre said he could not. B later

told the police that what frightened him during that week was the fact that

Eyre had said he would return but he never did. He felt let down by a man

who he had come to regard as his friend and protector and he felt that he

was being exposed to danger.

19. B did not attempt to escape from Hawthorne because of threats to the

effect that he could not run as he was being watched and by Hawthorne only

giving him the bare necessities to live on.

20. Later Eyre admitted to the police that he knew that Hawthorne was a

pimp who had young boys working for him. Eyre also admitted being in

contact with Hawthorne and described B as someone who might be available to

work for him as a prostitute.

21. On Friday 31st October 2003, a week after his initial abduction, B was

traced to Hawthorne’s address in Eccles. That was when, during a search of

Eyre’s flat on 11th November 2003, a number of indecent images of children

were found hidden under tiles on the bedroom floor. Eyre deployed his cover

story to explain them. However he later admitted making the images by

printing them from sites on the internet, although he denied that his

motives were improper.

22. On 31st August 2004 at Bolton Crown Court Eyre was sentenced to five

years’ imprisonment, having been convicted of three counts of theft from

his employers. Those offences were committed in October 2002. Eyre was

arrested for those offences on 28th July 2003 and then bailed for further

enquiries. So the sale of B to Hawthorne was arranged and executed when

Eyre was in fact on bail for serious offences of dishonesty.

23. In a victim impact statement, dated 10th September 2004, B, then 15 and

a half years of age, stated that as a result of these offences he suffered

regular anxiety bouts, bouts of depression and harboured thoughts of

self-harm. There was evidence of self-mutilation, which is commonly

associated with child sex abuse. He took an overdose of drugs in November

2003. He also suffered physical problems including constipation and lower

abdominal pain. His education had been blighted and he had been compelled

to move to a different area away from family and friends. He was diagnosed

as having contracted a herpes virus infection. The medical report which we

have seen speaks in relation to that. Furthermore, a letter which we have

seen which is written in his own hand shows an inadequate state of literacy

for a 15 and a half year old boy.

24. In an aide memoire document counsel for Eyre set out the conduct which

they accepted Eyre’s pleas represented. So far as count 7 was concerned,

the document stated:

“This count relates to the incitement of B to commit acts of gross

indecency with unknown males. This includes acts of grooming B and the

facilitation of B becoming involved in prostitution.

Count 8 … relates to the receipt of money by Eyre from B after B had acted

as a prostitute.

Count 13 … relates to the arrangement for B to be taken to Manchester by

Hawthorne and to be used there as a prostitute. It also involves the

transportation of B to Bradford to meet Hawthorne and the receipt of money

from Hawthorne for arranging the transfer.”

25. In a basis of plea document, served on behalf of Hawthorne, Hawthorne

denied that the arrangement, which was the subject of count of 13, included

any explicit agreement that the sexual favours for which B was to receive

remuneration included buggery. In respect of count 14 Hawthorne denied

knowing that B was under 16 years of age at the time of his abduction. That

was something he claimed to have only become aware of during the following

week.

26. In respect of count 16 Hawthorne admitted inciting B to commit this

offence as drafted. As for count 13, the prosecution argued that there was

no explicit agreement that the conspiracy would exclude buggery, and the

prosecution did not accept the position advanced in relation to count 14,

but they did not seek a trial in relation to those issues.

27. Certain aggravating features are highlighted in the reference. In

particular in relation to Eyre it is said that he groomed and corrupted B

explicitly for his use and for commercial exploitation as a prostitute.

Secondly, that the process involved the supply of alcohol, cigarettes,

drugs and giving rewards to him. Thirdly, that he corrupted B by

introducing him to homosexual activity and drawing his attention to the

financial gains to be made from prostitution. Fourthly, that he alienated B

from his family and school and encouraged hostility towards his family and

truancy from his school. Fifthly, that in that way Eyre was able to and did

exploit B for his own financial gain by putting him to work as a

prostitute. Sixthly, that the sexual acts which B was incited to perform

for money included [Assaults redacted]. Seventhly, that the offending

covered a period of up to about 18 months when the victim was aged 13 and

14. Further, it is submitted that Eyre sold the victim as a commodity to

Hawthorne for the explicit purpose of extensive further exploitation as a

male prostitute in another part of the country and that the evidence shows

that the victim suffers severe and lasting effects as a result of the

offending.

28. Turning to Hawthorne, there are aggravating features which are outlined

as follows. That Hawthorne bought the victim as a commodity from Eyre for

the explicit purpose of employing him in his prostitution business which

was already employing young people. Secondly, that he abducted the victim

for the explicit purpose of exploiting him commercially for prostitution

elsewhere. Thirdly, that the sexual acts which he was incited to perform

for money included [assaults redacted]. Fourthly, that B was 14 years of age

at the time of his offending and at least after a few days Hawthorne knew

it. Fifthly, that B suffers severe and lasting effects as a result of what

was taking place. Lastly, during the same period Hawthorne was making

arrangements with other men for the prostitution of an underage boy.

29. Both offenders in due course, as we have indicated, at the outset of

what was to be their trial pleaded guilty, but for the Attorney General Mr

Altman submitted to us that, first, in the case of Eyre the gravity of the

offending overall lay in the prolonged grooming of B for male prostitution,

concluding with his sale as a commodity to Hawthorne, a feature covered in

count 7 of the indictment for which the maximum available sentence was ten

years. Therefore, Mr Altman submits, the judge was wrong to treat the

grooming as part of count 8, living on the earnings of male prostitution,

for which the maximum available sentence was seven years which the judge

apparently took as his starting point.

30. Having invited attention to a number of decisions of this Court,

* Powell * [2001] 1 Cr App R(S) 261 , * Lassman * [2003] 1 Cr App R(S) 505

, * Attorney General’s Reference No 54 of 2003 ** (Britton) * [2004] 2 Cr

App R(S) 196 , and * Attorney General’s ** Reference No 6 of 2004

(Plakici) * [2005] 1 Cr App R(S) 83 , Mr Altman submitted that, although

these cases were very different on their facts, they support the contention

that, even after allowance was made for the late plea of guilty, first of

all, the sentence on count 7, in the case of Eyre, and on count 16, in the

case of Hawthorne, should have been considerably more than the two and a

half years’ imprisonment imposed by the trial judge. Secondly, that the

sentences imposed under counts 8 and 17 for living on the earnings of male

prostitution should not have been ordered to be served concurrently because

they represented an aggravating feature, namely commercial exploitation. Mr

Altman further submitted that there was an additional aggravating feature

and that was the agreement which Eyre made with Hawthorne to live on the

boy’s earnings, represented by count 13. That again called for a

consecutive sentence.

31. He did not seek to disturb the judge’s decision to impose no separate

penalty in respect of counts 1 to 3, or, for that matter, his decision to

impose no separate penalty in respect of counts 29 to 32, and he conceded

that the judge was right to have regard to the prison sentence recently

imposed at Bolton: see the decision of this Court in * Stevens * [1997] 2

Cr App R(S) 180 .

32. Mr Altman submitted that, having regard to the unique gravity of this

case, the right course might to be order that the sentences imposed in

respect of this indictment should be served concurrently with those imposed

at Bolton. Specifically in regard to Hawthorne, Mr Altman accepted that

because of the basis of plea when sentencing for count 14, abducting a

child, the judge had to proceed upon the basis that the offender did not

initially know that the boy was under 16, but nevertheless it was submitted

that the sentence of one year’s imprisonment for abduction was lenient.

With that we agree.

33. On behalf of Eyre Mr Batty submitted that overall the sentences were

not unduly lenient. The judge had to give credit for the pleas, late but

effective, in that they spared the boy considerable distress, as well as

shortening the legal proceedings. He also had to have regard to totality.

In all, as a result of sentencing at Bolton and Leeds, Eyre was faced with

a total sentence of 13 years’ imprisonment, and Mr Batty submitted that

should be regarded as sufficient.

34. In dealing with B, Eyre who had no relevant previous convictions, was

persuasive and coercive, but he was not violent and he did not threaten

violence. Furthermore, he was only involved with one boy and his profits

were relatively small. Certainly there was no evidence of a lavish

lifestyle. Since going to prison Eyre has sought to assist, and there is no

reason, Mr Batty submitted, to suspect that he will be a risk to other boys

when he is eventually released having regard to his present attitude to the

help which is available to him in prison.

35. On behalf of Hawthorne, Miss Blackwell submitted that the judge was

right to approach the matter as he did and to recognise the crucial effect

of Hawthorne’s comprehensive pleas. His motives, she submitted, were

financial rather than sexual and he too has progressed well in custody.

36. In our judgment, Mr Altman is right as to the approach which should

have been adopted, save as to the sentence imposed in respect of the Bolton

offence.

37. Dealing first with Eyre, we consider that for count 7 the right

sentence would have been seven years’ imprisonment, because it was a

specimen count which could be taken as reflecting the grooming of the boy.

38. Count 8, living on the boy’s earnings from prostitution, was an

aggravating feature which called for an additional sentence. The judge

imposed a sentence of five years because he was addressing the issue of

grooming in relation to that count. We consider that the sentence should

have been one of four years’ imprisonment consecutive.

39. Count 13, conspiring with Hawthorne to live on the boy’s earnings, was

a further aggravating feature calling for a further consecutive sentence.

We agree with the judge’s sentence of three years’ imprisonment.

40. Accordingly, in our judgment, were it not for the five year sentence

imposed at Bolton the sentence in the case of Eyre should have been one of

14 years’ imprisonment, but the judge had to have regard to the Bolton

sentence and we have to have regard to

double jeopardy, the fact that Eyre is now being sentenced for a second

time. At the time of sentence we consider that the judge should have made

some reduction to the total of 14 years if he was to order that the

sentences he imposed be served consecutively to the sentence imposed at

Bolton. We consider that was the right course because the Bolton offences

were serious and very little of the sentence for those offences had been

served. Nevertheless, the reduction, in our judgment, should only have

brought the total on this indictment down to about 12 years. So the total

sentence of eight years which was imposed was unduly lenient.

41. At this stage the reduction necessary to allow for the Bolton sentence

and for double jeopardy is best achieved by ordering that the sentence

imposed on count 13 be served concurrently with the other sentences. So we

order that the sentences on counts 7 and 8 be set aside, and that in their

place there be sentences of seven and four years, those sentences to be

served consecutively to each other and consecutive to the five year

sentence imposed at Bolton, but that the three year sentence imposed on

count 13 be served concurrently with the sentences imposed on counts 7 and

8, making a total of 11 years on this indictment to be added to the five

year sentence at Bolton.

42. In the case of Hawthorne we see no reason to interfere with the

sentence on count 13, the conspiracy count. But in his case there is

considerable overlap between count 13 and count 17, living on the earnings

of the boy. Count 13 was the agreement which came to fruition in count 17

and the period of exploitation was, as compared with Eyre, short. So we

consider that the appropriate sentence on count 17 could have been three

years rather than the four years imposed by the judge to be served

concurrently with the sentence imposed in respect of count 13.

43. Count 14, abduction, we consider to have been a serious matter, even

allowing for the basis of plea. In our judgment, it merited a sentence of

two years’ imprisonment not the one year sentence imposed.

44. Count 16, inciting B to commit an act of gross indecency, was a grave

matter, but not as grave as count 7 in the case of Eyre, because by the

time that B was passed to Hawthorne the boy was already corrupted and the

period of further corruption was short. So we consider that for count 16 a

sentence of four years’ imprisonment would have sufficed. That, of course,

is longer than the two and a half year sentence imposed by the judge.

45. We make no criticism of the sentences imposed on counts 18 to 21, two

years’ imprisonment in each case for living on the earnings of prostitutes

other than B, those sentences to be served concurrently with each other. At

the original time of sentencing we consider it would have been right to

order that the total of two years’ imprisonment imposed in respect of those

four counts be served consecutive to the other sentences, making a total of

11 years in all.

46. It follows that, in our judgment, the total of seven years was too

lenient. We therefore set aside the sentences imposed and order that

Hawthorne be sentenced as follows. For count 13 three years’ imprisonment,

the sentence imposed below. For count 14, two years’ imprisonment,

previously a sentence of one year. For count 16 four years’

imprisonment, previously two and a half years. For count 17 three years’

imprisonment, but concurrent with count 13; previously the sentence on that

count was four years’ imprisonment. For counts 18 to 21, two years’

imprisonment in respect of each count, those sentences to be served

concurrently with each other. To allow for double jeopardy we now order

that the sentences imposed on counts 18 to 21 be served concurrently with

the other sentences imposed, making a total of nine years’ imprisonment in

all.

47. MR ALTMAN: My Lord, I think there were two other slight errors that

crept in. The first I think was when my Lord was listing the original

sentences in the case of Eyre. In relation to count 7 I think my Lord said

two years rather than two and a half years.

48. LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY : Did I? If so, I accept it was two and a half.

49. MR ALTMAN: At one stage I was accused of arguing that the sentences

between the two types of offence should be concurrent. Your Lordship

clearly meant consecutive.

50. LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY : Thank you very much.

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/

[3] 2004 Nov 9 File on 4 via Cathy Fox blog File on 4 “Paedophiles” Transcript 9th November 2004 https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/06/04/file-on-4-paedophiles-transcript-9th-november-2004/

[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, BBC, cathy fox blog, Child sexual abuse, Child trafficking, Court, Manchester and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Raymond Colin Hawthorne. Nathan Oliver Eyre. Court of Appeal 19th April 2005

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

  2. david jolin says:

    Would you be interested in proof Nathan Eyre was not guilty of much of what he was convicted of

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