James Bernard Littlewood 19th June 2003 Court of Appeal

This series of appeals concern alleged perpetrators at Scawby Grove Care Home in North Lincolnshire and St Camillus Care Home, Tadcaster, Operation Juno and perhaps Operation Courier

Cathy Fox Blog Index and Timeline of Court Appeals and Documentation [2]

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” to protect victims, there may also be “assault redacted” across most of the spectrum of abuse. The assaults are left in the charges, but mainly redacted when repeated with reference to the individual.

Some redaction 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 vital information is mainly names of the perpetrators, past addresses, instituions where assaults occurred, 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.

Some transcripts may have been subject to automatic reading softwware and whilst effort has been made to correct these, the text should not be regarded as definitive.

If you think that the balance is not correct or that a particular redaction needs reconsideration, please say.

Cathy Fox Blog Index and Timeline of Court Appeals and Documentation [2]

This particular appeal is redacted for personal details and assaults.

[2003] EWCA Crim 2215

No: 200203085/X4

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL


Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2

Thursday, 19th June 2003

Lord Justice Rix

Regina v James Bernard Littlewood


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 J LODGE appeared on behalf of the APPLICANT

MISS C SJOLIN appeared on behalf of the CROWN

JUDGMENT

(As Approved by the Court)

19th June 2003

1. LORD JUSTICE RIX: This is an application for permission to appeal against conviction and sentence of James Littlewood who was convicted on 2nd May 2002 in the Crown Court at Great Grimsby on two counts of buggery and 13 counts of cruelty to a child. He was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment each concurrent on the two counts of buggery, and to four years each concurrent on the 13 counts of cruelty to a child, those two sentences of nine years and four years to run consecutively, making a total of 13 years.

2. Mr Littlewood was deputy in charge of two children’s homes a considerable time ago. The two counts of buggery concerned two separate boys, [A] and [B]. There were two other counts of buggery on the indictment concerning [one of the boys]. The jury acquitted on one of those, that was count 12, and could not agree a verdict on the other, that was count 13. The judge directed the jury that the evidence of one complainant could be used to support the evidence of another complainant.

3. The submission is made that it is not known whether the finding of guilt on the count concerning B, count 11, supported the finding of guilt on the count concerning A, count 2, or vice versa. The submission is that on the apparent facts of the case there appears to be no very good reason why the jury should have convicted on one count respecting B concerning buggery and not on the other two counts. There is also a count, count 10, of cruelty to a child affecting the same complainant which is also involved in these applications.

4. We think that there is material here in the ground of inconsistency of verdict to merit the attention of the Full Court and we would give leave. It is unnecessary to say anything more, other than this. Statements have been put before the Court of new evidence to assist on this application and now on the appeal. This is material which we have not had the opportunity to consider, it having been handed to us on the bench this afternoon. Miss Sjolin for the Crown submits that it is entirely concerning peripheral matters. This is a matter which must be left to the Full Court. We refer the applications to admit fresh evidence to the Full Court. We also refer the question of sentence to the Full Court because the ultimate sentence will depend upon the appeal for which we have now given leave.

5. We cannot say that the appellant should be confident in his appeal, but on the grounds that we have stated and in the light of the lengthy sentence which he faces, we think that it merits the attention of this Court.

6. MR LODGE: My Lord, I am grateful. Might I make two further applications? The first is for funding for the purposes of the appeal. The appellant had legal aid for the purposes of his trial. So far as today is concerned, I would seek, therefore, legal aid for his appeal. I would seek legal aid to cover today. Might I correct a mistake within the Criminal Appeal Office summary? Although I initially indicated that I would have been prepared to appear pro bono, and that remains my position, in fact the appellant’s union are funding today, but I still make an application for legal aid today, but, in particular, for the hearing of the appeal.

7. So far as that application is concerned, can I at this stage make an application for representation by junior counsel only, the position being that leading counsel was instructed at trial. Should it be the view of the appellant that he wishes leading counsel instead of, or as well as junior counsel, to conduct the appeal that matter can be dealt with in writing, but for the moment if legal aid be granted, might it be granted for junior counsel only?

8. LORD JUSTICE RIX: And you say for solicitors too, did you say?

9. MR LODGE: No. In the normal course of events it would not be for solicitors as well. My Lord, thinking it through, bearing in mind the fresh evidence position, it might in these circumstances be easier if legal aid be granted to solicitors as well rather than seeking to organise matters through the Registrar. I suspect it will be more convenient for everyone.

10. SIR RICHARD TUCKER: Simply for the purpose of accumulating and presenting any fresh evidence.

11. MR LODGE: My Lord, yes.

(Pause while the court conferred)

12. LORD JUSTICE RIX: No representation order for today, Mr Lodge, since you are instructed by the union. But a representation order for a junior and for solicitors, limited to the perfecting and obtaining of new evidence which you want to present to the Court —

13. MR LODGE: My Lord, I am grateful.

14. LORD JUSTICE RIX: —for the appeal.

 2016 Cathy Fox Blog Index / Timeline of Court Appeals and Documentation [2]

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. These links are generally UK based.

  • 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.
  • Hwaairfan blog An Indigenous Australian Approach to Healing Trauma  [J]
  • Survivors UK for victims and survivors of male rape or the sexual abuse of men [K]
  • Voicing CSA group [L] helps arrange survivors meetings in your area

Links

[2] 2015 Cathy Fox Blog Index / Timeline of Court Appeals and Documentation https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/a-timeline-of-court-and-ewca-documentation-on-cathy-fox-blog/

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 cathy fox blog, Child Abuse, Child sexual abuse, Childrens home, Court, Yorkshire and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to James Bernard Littlewood 19th June 2003 Court of Appeal

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