James Bernard Littlewood 2. 28th June 2004 Court of Appeal

James Bernard Littlewood’s Appeal against sentence partly successful. Reporting restrictions about naming St Camillus due to one further trial of a Mr Sheik, but Scawby Grove could be named.

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 unredacted

 

[2004] EWCA Crim J0628-1

No: 200203085/C1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION

Monday, 28th June 2004

Lord Justice Waller

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 ARLIDGE QC & MR J LODGE appeared on behalf of the APPELLANT

MR W HARBAGE QC appeared on behalf of the CROWN

POST JUDGMENT DISCUSION

LORD JUSTICE WALLER: For the reasons given in the judgment which has been handed down the appeal against conviction is dismissed.

(Submissions re: sentence)

2. LORD JUSTICE WALLER: We have just handed down our judgment in the appeal against conviction and the facts and background appear from that judgment and we now are dealing with the appeal against sentence.

3. As appears from the main judgment the appellant was sentenced to 4 years on each count of cruelty, those sentences to run concurrently and he was sentenced to 9 years, being convicted on two counts of buggery. The sentences of 9 years to run concurrently as between the two counts but consecutive to the 4 years, making a sentence of 13 years in all.

4. It is common ground that the 4 year sentences on the cruelty counts are unlawful. Mr Arlidge, who has appeared for the appellant today as he did on the conviction appeal, has argued that the judge was clearly contemplating that the maximum sentence on the cruelty counts was 10 years when he imposed a sentence of 4 years; thus (says Mr Arlidge) he was imposing a sentence of little under half of the maximum sentence.

5. Mr Arlidge has taken us through the facts on each of the cruelty counts, pointing out that, although the degree of force used was well beyond that which could lawfully have been justified, it was not, he would submit, of an extreme kind. He submits it would be wrong for this Court simply to engineer the sentence so that it came out at the 4 years which the judge had passed.

6. There is force in Mr Alridge’s submission though it cannot be taken too far. We think that the appropriate sentence on the cruelty counts is one of 18 months. In our view, the sentences on counts 1, 3 and 4, those which took place at the St Camillus should run concurrently between themselves and those on counts 6, 10 and 14 to 21 should be concurrent between themselves, but they should be consecutive to counts 1, 3 and 4. So that produces a sentence of 3 years on the cruelty counts.

7. We then turn to the sentence on the two counts of buggery. There are two factors to take into account in relation to these sentences. The first is to look at the sentence itself. It is a situation in which the appellant was convicted on only two counts of buggery having been charged with four counts. In that context Mr Arlidge suggested that 8 years would have been a proper sentence and that 9 years was excessive.

8. The other factor to take into account is to look at the totality. Clearly he is also right in saying that the judge was dealing with a course of conduct. Mr Arlidge sought to suggest that that should make the sentences concurrent. We do not accept that submission. We think that the correct sentence for the counts of buggery was one of 8 years and that they should be concurrent as between themselves but consecutive to the sentences on cruelty. That has the effect of reducing the total sentence to 11 years. To that extent the appeal against sentence is allowed.

9. MR HARBAGE: My Lords referred to the sentence being 8 years for the buggery, it was 9 years.

10. LORD JUSTICE WALLER: I intended to reduce it from 9 years to 8 years and I am sorry, if there was a slip of the tongue. Mr Arlidge, you have suggested that there is a point of law of general public importance in relation to the conviction appeal. I am afraid, we do not consider the point you have drafted to be a point of law of general public importance.

11. MR ARLIDGE: Could I raise one other matter. You put a restriction on publication which had to be reconsidered at the end of the appeal. The position is that there is a pending retrial for a Mr Sheik that relates to one of the institutions I think it is St Camillus which is not I do not know when that is to be heard or where, but I imagine it is within –

12. MR HARBAGE: Later this year to be heard on the North Eastern circuit.

13. LORD JUSTICE WALLER: It has a restriction on publication in relation to all these trials, pending further trial.

14. MR HARBAGE: Not as far as I am aware. When we were here was last time a restriction was placed.

15. LORD JUSTICE WALLER: I remember that, but there had been the previous trials of Mayor and Brizzarli. Are there reporting restrictions in relation to those trials?

16. MR HARBAGE: When those trials were heard at first instance the case of Sheik was not in anybody’s contemplation, not in the trial judge’s contemplation. At the appeal of Brizzarli, it was not mentioned again.

17. LORD JUSTICE WALLER: What is your attitude to reporting?

18. MR HARBAGE: The Crown’s attidude is there is absolutely no reason why Scorby Grove cannot be mentioned by name. As far as St Camillus is concerned, it may be prudent to refer to it simply as a second children’s home, without referring to the name itself.

19. MR ARLIDGE: Could I mention one other matter in this regard because it has been raised with me. There was an occasion after the first, initial conviction where Mr Littlewood was attacked in prison and quite badly injured. His family had actually been concerned about that. I have said that I do not think on that ground you have any power to restrict publication, but I mention it to you as they mention it to me.

20. LORD JUSTICE WALLER: We will make a limited order which will postpone the identification of the second home, St Camillus, pending the trial of Sheik, or further order.

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

One Response to James Bernard Littlewood 2. 28th June 2004 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