Appeal against sentence partly allowed. Appeal contains list of Kilbourne’s many convictions.
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 details, 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. I have also redacted unnecessary detail of assaults.
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, institutions where assaults occurred, the actual charges the perpetrators faced, and dates – 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.
Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog 
Index of Court Appeals on this blog 
 EWCA Crim J0306-1
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
Tuesday, 6th March 1973
Lord Justice Lawton
Regina v John Kilbourne
(From the Shorthand Notes of Cherer & Co., 34 Essex Street, Strand, London, WC2R 3AT. Telephone Number: 01-583 4121. Shorthand Writers to the Court.)
MR. E. GREENWOOD appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
LORD JUSTICE LAWTON: On 19th April 1972 at Leeds Crown Court after a trial before Mr. Justice Lawson and a jury, the Appellant was convicted and sentenced as follows: count 1, buggery, ten years’ imprisonment; count 2, indecent assault, five years concurrent; count 3, attempted buggery, seven years concurrent; count 4, indecent assault, five years concurrent; count 5, indecent assault, five years consecutive; counts 6 and 7, five years on each concurrent with the sentence on count 5; that made a total of fifteen years’ imprisonment, and the learned Judge certified that those sentences were extended sentences.
On 31st July 1972 this Court allowed this Appellant’s appeal against conviction, and quashed the conviction on all counts. The Court certified, however, a point of law on counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7. The prosecution appealed to the House of Lords. On 31st January 1973 their Lordships’ House ordered that the convictions on the counts certified should be restored. The conviction on count 3 had been quashed by this Court, and that was not the subject of any appeal to the House of Lords. The House of Lords remitted this case to this Court so that their Lordships’ order could be made the order of this Court. Their Lordships also called upon this Court to deal with the Appellant’s appeal against sentence.
It is unnecessary for me to say very much about the facts about this distressing case, because such facts as are important are set out both in the judgment of this Court which is reported, and in the judgment of the House of Lords which is reported in 1973 2 Weekly Law Reports at page 254. Suffice it to say that on count 1 of the indictment, there was a clear case of the buggery of a boy of 10, that buggery took place in a disgusting manner and the victim was, of course, a small boy. So far as the indecent assaults were concerned, they were really cases of this man masturbating using the bodies of small boys in order to achieve his purpose.
His record is deplorable and it is necessary for me to refer to it in some detail. He has a finding of guilt before the Leeds Juvenile Court, but that is so ancient and an entirely different type of offence that it should be disregarded by this Court. His first conviction which does have some bearing is a conviction on 31st March 1952 at Aldershot Magistrates Court when he was found loitering on War Department land for the purpose of behaving in a disorderly or indecent manner. He was then fined £5. Later in that year, namely on 11th July 1952, at Hampshire Assizes, he was convicted of buggery and attempted murder. The allegation on that occasion was that somehow or other he had picked up a small boy, buggered him and then attempted to strangle him. The Court wishes to record that there may have been some misunderstanding at the trial because the prosecution were then suggesting that he had also tried to poison the boy by coal gas poisoning. The Court is now satisfied that that was not so, and that the attempted murder charge related solely to his attempting to strangle the boy.
But those convictions do show that this Appellant has a very dangerous tendency. On the other hand the Court reminds itself that although these dangerous tendencies manifested themselves in 1952, there has been an interval of twenty years during which this man has given way, as I should be recounting in a few moments, to his homosexual tendencies, but there has been no repetition of the kind of conduct which led to his being convicted of attempted murder in 1952. He was sentenced to a total of seven years’ imprisonment in 1952 for the offences to which I have referred.
Then there are in 1958 and 1959 some minor offences which have no relevance to this case. In 1962 at Leeds Quarter Sessions, he was convicted of inciting male persons to commit gross indecency. He was then sent to prison for six months. There was also a second charge of an indecent assault on a boy aged 12 and on 5th April 1964 he was convicted of an indecent assault on a boy aged 11. In respect of those two convictions he was sent to prison, for eighteen months consecutive to the sentence of six months to which he was sentenced at the same Sessions, and for the indecent assault on a boy in 1964, he was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. Then at Leeds Assizes in 1964, he was sentenced for buggery on a boy aged 10, and on this occasion he was sentenced to seven years. That seven years was to run concurrently with the three years for the indecent assault on a boy aged 11.
He was released from these sentences on 24th December 1968. In the judgment of this Court that date has considerable importance, because the earliest of the offences in respect of which he was convicted in this case was in 1970. Between his release in December 1968 and the commission of the offence mentioned in count 1 of the indictment, he had managed to control his tendencies to such an extent certainly not to attract the attention of the police in any way. The Court is prepared to infer that during that period, he had made an effort to avoid clashes with the law, and he must be given credit for that.
The fact remains, however, that he has a tendency when he comes into contact with boys in the age bracket of 10, 11 or 12, and he is liable to give way to them. When he does give way, serious offences can take place, as is evidenced by his conviction on count 1 of this indictment. In those circumstances this Court agrees with the learned Judge that this case called for an extended sentence.
On the other hand the question is was the total of fifteen years’ imprisonment the right sentence for this man? This Court has come to the conclusion that it was not. Looked at in isolation, the offence mentioned in count 1 was a bad offence of its kind. On the other hand the cases of indecent assault were not particularly bad of their kind. In those circumstances the Court has decided to substitute for the sentence of ten years on count 1 of the indictment, a sentence of seven years, and in respect of the offences of indecent assault, to substitute sentences of two years on each of the counts charging indecent assault, all these sentences to run concurrently, making a total of seven years’ imprisonment in all, certified, as I have already said, as an extended sentence. To that extent the appeal against sentence is allowed.
John Kilbourne has four appeals
1972 Jul 31 John Kilbourne Appeal 1  Court of Appeal
1973 Mar 6 John Kilbourne Appeal 2  Court of Appeal
1981 Oct 5 John Kilbourne Appeal 3  Court of Appeal
1982 May 17 John Kilbourne Appeal 4  Court of Appeal
Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog 
Index of Court Appeals on this blog 
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
 Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/05/23/newspaper-stories-index-timeline/
 Index of Court Appeals EWCA on this blog https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/a-timeline-of-court-and-ewca-documentation-on-cathy-fox-blog/
 2016 Jul 28 Cathy Fox Blog John Kilbourne Appeal 1 July 31st 1972 Court of Appeal https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2016/07/28/john-kilbourne-appeal-1-july-31st-1972-court-of-appeal/
 2016 Jul 28 Cathy Fox Blog John Kilbourne Appeal 2 March 6th 1973 Court of Appeal https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2016/07/28/john-kilbourne-appeal-2-march-6th-1973-court-of-appeal/
 2016 Jul 28 Cathy Fox Blog John Kilbourne Appeal 3 October 5th 1981 Court of Appeal https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2016/07/28/john-kilbourne-appeal-3-october-5th-1981-court-of-appeal/
 2016 Jul 28 Cathy Fox Blog John Kilbourne Appeal 4 May 17th 1982 Court of Appeal https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2016/07/28/john-kilbourne-appeal-4-may-17th-1982-court-of-appeal/