Cedric Malcolm Armston 6th November 1981 Court of Appeal

Appeal was dismissed.  This case is used as precedent in others despite its brevity.


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 software 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]

[1981] EWCA Crim J1106-3

No. 2969/B/81


Friday, 6thNovember1981

The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Lane)

Regina v Cedric Malcolm Armston

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

  1. C. GOODCHILD appeared as Counsel on behalf of the Appellant.


THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: On 23rd January of this year, in the Crown Court at Shrewsbury before Mr. Justice Drake, the appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of buggery and was sentenced to concurrent terms of two years’ and nine months’ imprisonment in respect of those offences. He now appeals against that sentence by leave of the Single Judge. The appellant was aged 41 at the time of the hearing, and single. He is undoubtedly a confirmed homosexual. By virtue of attending and being a member of a homosexuals’ club in Wolverhampton he had got to know the two youths who were the subject of his attentions and of the counts in the indictment. The first youth was aged 15 at the time of the offences. He was, unhappily, in care at the time because he had stolen a bicycle. He had spent most of his time in a local authority home. It is true that he was not a stranger to homosexual activities, but, so far as one can gather, when he was first buggered by the appellant it was the first time that he had had that experience. It was agreed on all hands, both by the youth himself and by the appellant in a statement to the police, that anal intercourse took place between them on from 15 to 30 occasions in a period of nine months.

The other youth was aged 19 or 20 at the material times. He was of thoroughly unreliable character and there is no doubt that even at that early age he was a male prostitute. Certainly he had been before the courts before and he had in that period been involved with men other than the appellant. The appellant had anal intercourse with this youth or three or four occasions.

It is now submitted by Mr. Goldsack, in an admirably succinct argument, that the sentence of two years’ imprisonment was unnecessarily long. He concedes realistically that immediate imprisonment was inevitable, but he rightly points out that the appellant had never previously appeared in court; that he had been of good character until these offences; that he had a good work-record; that he is middle-aged; that his experience in prison is unpleasant because at his own request he is in solitary confinement under Rule 43; that accordingly a shorter sentence would deter others of like mind, and that he is at present on drugs which will limit this sort of behaviour in future.

But the learned judge had to consider not only the effect on the appellant but also the effect on others. It must be made perfectly plain that boys of 15, whatever their character, cannot be treated in this way. If the judge had passed a sentence of less than two years’ imprisonment for these offences he would have done less than his duty to deter others. We are unable to say that the sentence was in any way wrong or excessive. We think that the learned judge was correct in the sentence that he passed on the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Index of Court Appeals on this blog [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


[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/

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 cathyfoxblog, Child Abuse, Court, West Midlands and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Cedric Malcolm Armston 6th November 1981 Court of Appeal

  1. Pingback: Bristol Child Abuse Network 2000 | 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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.