John Kilbourne Appeal 4 May 17th 1982 Court of Appeal

Appeal dismissed as although appellant will submit to treatment, it is decided the chances of him responding to treatment are almost non-existent.

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 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 [1]

Index of Court Appeals on this blog [2]

[1982] EWCA Crim J0517-11

No. 1396/A/81

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Monday, 17th May 1982

The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Lane)

Regina v John Kilbourne


(Transcript of the Shorthand Notes of Marten Walsh Cherer Limited, 36/38, Whitefriars Street, Fleet Street, London, EC4Y 8BH. Telephone Number: 01-583 7635. Shorthand Writers to the Court).

MR. I. J. DOBKIN appeared on behalf of the Appellant.

JUDGMENT

THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: On 20th February 1981, in the Crown Court at Leeds, this appellant pleaded guilty to three counts of buggery and was sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment on each count to run concurrently.

The matter went before the single judge in the first instance, who refused leave, but the application was renewed before the full court, sitting in a different composition from the one it sits in today, and the full court gave leave to appeal against sentence on the basis that it might be possible, during the period which would elapse between that hearing and today’s hearing, to obtain further medical evidence about the possibility of this man being treated for his trouble.

There had been evidence from a Dr. Valentine before the court of trial, but Dr. Valentine had ceased to be available to the National Health Service and consequently some other evidence was required.

One of the difficulties in the present case is that this man, who at the date of his conviction was 50 years of age, has amassed a formidable number of convictions for offences of buggery and like crimes, which he has committed upon young boys. In 1952 he was sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment’ in total for buggery and attempted murder. In 1962 he was sentenced to 6 months and 18 months’ imprisonment consecutive for inciting the commission of an act of gross indecency and indecent assault on a boy of 12. In 1964 he received 7 years’ imprisonment for buggery on a boy of 10. At Leeds Crown Court in 1972 – 10 years for buggery, 5 for indecent’ assault, 7 for attempted buggery, and so on. In 1973, the term which he had received previously of 10 years for buggery was reduced to 7 by this court. Then in 1978, for indecent assault on a male person and indecency with children, 4 years’ imprisonment in total.

He now, through Mr. Dobkin, who has given us a realistic assessment of the case, submits that he wishes to undergo treatment, is prepared to undergo treatment, and accordingly his sentence should be substantially reduced.

Unhappily, the latest medical report from Dr. Mahapatra, which we received on 14th May, and is dated 12th May 1982, contains this passage: “It also appeared to me that he” (that is the appellant) “had failed to learn from his repeated prison sentences and in spite of his maturity of age. After talking to him I failed to find any evidence of remorse on his part for using boys for his deviant sexual pleasure. I found Mr. Kilbourne to be a plausible man who according to him was very keen to accept treatment, even in a psychiatric unit with closed doors. After careful consideration of his case I came to the conclusion that the chances of his responding to the available methods of treatment are almost non-existent. In the circumstances I do not consider that I would be of any assistance in his treatment for sexual deviance. I appreciated that a prison sentence would do little to help to modify his sexual expression, however, it will serve one important function, that is, it will protect young boys in the locality where your client lived, from being molested by him.” Those are sentiments this court endorses. Of course, as far as a man like this is concerned, prison does him no good at all: it may indeed do him harm. But we have another duty to consider, and that is the duty to the public. The longer that this man can be kept away from small boys, the better. He is a confirmed paederast, who is not prepared to mend his ways. If he were, he would already, voluntarily, have sought and accepted medical treatment. He has not. This was the least sentence which could properly have been passed upon him. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog [1]

Index of Court Appeals on this blog [2]

1972 Jul 31 John Kilbourne Appeal 1 [3]  Court of Appeal

1973 Mar 6 John Kilbourne Appeal 2 [4] Court of Appeal

1981 Oct 5 John Kilbourne Appeal 3 [5] Court of Appeal

1982 May 17 John Kilbourne Appeal 4  [6] Court of Appeal

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

[1] Index of Newspaper and Journal articles on this blog https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/05/23/newspaper-stories-index-timeline/

[2] 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/

[3] 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/

[4] 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/

[5] 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/

[6] 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/

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 and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to John Kilbourne Appeal 4 May 17th 1982 Court of Appeal

  1. Pingback: John Kilbourne Appeal 1 July 31st 1972 Court of Appeal | cathy fox blog

  2. Pingback: John Kilbourne Appeal 3 October 5th 1981 Court of Appeal | cathy fox blog

  3. Pingback: John Kilbourne Appeal 2 March 6th 1973 Court of Appeal | cathy fox blog

  4. Pingback: An Index and Timeline of Court & Court of Appeal Documents on Cathy Fox Blog | cathy fox blog

  5. Pingback: John Kilbourne Appeal 4 May 17th 1982 Court of Appeal | cathy fox blog | circusbuoy

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