Andrew Crawford and Raymond Gatenby 25th Jan 1971 Court of Appeal

Appeal against sentence, which was allowed for Gatenby but rejected for Crawford.

This is believed to be the actor Raymond Gatenby, see IMDb [3]

Redaction

Some court 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 redaction” 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.  Common mistakes in reprinting here are that quotation marks are sometimes not correct, replaced by odd symbols.

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

This appeal is unredacted by cathy fox blog

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

Index of Court Appeals on this blog [2]

[1971] EWCA Crim J0125-11

No. 4624/C/70

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Monday, 25th January 1971

The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Parker)

Regina

v.

Andrew Crawford

and Raymond Gatenby


(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. GILBERT GRAY appeared as Counsel for the Applicant Gatenby.

JUDGMENT

LORD JUSTICE CAIRNS: On the 18th April, 1969 at Eastbourne Magistrates’ Court Andrew Crawford was found guilty of indecently assaulting a boy of 11 years of age; he was then put on probation for two years. On the 17th July, 1970 at Leeds Assizes before Mr. Justice Willis he pleaded guilty to two charges of indecently assaulting a boy of 13. He had at first pleaded not guilty to those counts and to a count of buggery of the same boy, but after the boy and another witness had given evidence, he changed his plea except as to the buggery; this was accepted by the Prosecution and on the directions of the Judge he was found not guilty of buggery.

On the 20th July at the same Assize Raymond Gatenby pleaded guilty to indecently assaulting the same 13 year old boy. There was another count of the indictment against him for publishing an obscene picture or magazine to the boy; he pleaded not guilty to that and that plea was accepted. Crawford was sentenced by Mr. Justice Willis to three years’ imprisonment concurrent in respect of each of the two counts of the indictment to which he pleaded guilty, and six months’ imprisonment consecutive in respect of the breach of probation; that made 3£ years in all. Gatenby was sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment. Both of them now apply for leave to appeal against sentence and Gatenby only has been represented before the Court by Counsel.

Crawford in his grounds of appeal complains that his sentence was too severe; he points out that this is his first experience of prison that is because he has been dealt with leniently before. He asserts that he has now been informed that the boy has a reputation for hanging round Leeds Railway Station in order to obtain money of men. Enquiries have been made and this has not been confirmed. Crawford then complains not that the learned Judge had not been given details of the offence which led to his being put on probation at Eastbourne. He says if details had been given the Judge would have realised that the indecent assault then was of a comparatively minor nature. Finally he says he suffers acutely from a sinus condition and is having medical treatment to try and cure his sexual problems which at present prevent him from having heterosexual intercourse. Gatenby in his grounds complains that his sentence is too severe having regard to all the circumstances of the case.

The facts relating to the charges in the indictment are these, on the 3rd March, 1970 Crawford met this boy by chance at Leeds Railway Station, gave the boy some refreshment, took him by train to Bradford, gave him lunch, brought him back to Leeds and invited him to go to his flat at Roundley. There he fondled and kissed the boy, persuaded him to undress and go to bed with him for a reward of £5; in bed he continued various acts of the grossest indecency with the boy. He then gave him a tie and £2 notes, which the boy handed back to him saying he would have the whole amount of £5 on the next day. They met the next day but no active indecency took place. Crawford however wrote out a cheque for £100 and gave it to the boy, and then took it back again, saying he would keep it in case the boy lost it. There were arrangements for a future meeting and they met on the 9th March. They went again to Crawford’s flat, got into bed and grossly lascivious conduct went on for about an hour.

After that Crawford telephoned to Gatenby; he told the boy that he was inviting him to meet a friend who was a well-known television personality; then Crawford and the boy arranged to meet on the following day. On the afternoon of that day, the 10th March, they went to Gatenby’s flat. The boy was there shown some pornographic books depicting homosexual and heterosexual activities. They were Gatenby’s books, but according to Gatenby it was Crawford who showed them to the boy. The Jury must have been satisfied that that was so, because, as I have said, Gatenby was acquitted of showing these books to the boy. Then the boy sat on the sofa between the two Applicants and was masturbated in turn by the two of them. After that Gatenby left the flat, apparently, immediately after this behaviour had taken place and had no further contact with the boy at all. He left the boy with Crawford at the flat. Later the boy’s mother became worried and eventually went to the Police. Crawford was questioned by the Police, admitted having taken the boy to his flat and shown him a magazine containing pictures of naked women. He was cautioned and told he would be arrested on a charge of buggery. He replied; “We’ve only played about a bit. I haven’t hurt him, have I?”. He was taken to the Police Station and he there admitted that he and the boy had wrestled naked on the bed. After some further denial he admitted he had rubbed against his bottom because, as he put it, “It did not go in”. He also admitted that he and Gatenby had masturbated the boy. When Gatenby was questioned by the Police he denied touching the boy. However, when it came to the trial he did not persist in that denial but pleaded guilty at the outset.

Dealing with one point which is taken by Crawford in his grounds of appeal, namely that no details were given of the offence at Eastbourne, in the view of this Court it was quite sufficient for the Judge to know that that was a case of indecent assault on a boy of 11. In the previous year, 1968, Crawford had been convicted for indecent assault on a boy of 9 and inciting the boy to commit an act of indecency; for that he was fined. Crawford has been employed as a Cinema Projectionist and studio hand at Television Companies; he was described as a satisfactory worker. He told a Psychiatrist that his trouble was that he was physically incapable of sexual intercourse with a woman. However he told the Police Officer that he had in fact in 1965 begotten a child by sexual intercourse with a woman he hoped to marry.

Gatenby is now 40 years of age, unmarried with no previous convictions recorded against him, but he disclosed to the Police that he had had a conviction in 1954 for soliciting; that was when he was only 16 years of age. Since 1954 he has worked as an actor in repertory and television with little success until fairly recently when he had begun to work for Yorkshire Television in a popular television series.

For Crawford it was said that he was under psychiatric treatment and two medical reports were handed in by his Counsel. These showed that the treatment he was having was directed to helping him to have sexual intercourse with women, but they do not suggest that up to the time of the reports the treatment had met with any success. It was suggested that the boy concerned was by no means wholly unsophisticated, and there was medical evidence which supported that view.

With regard to Gatenby, it was said “before Mr. Justice Willis and has” been repeated again on his behalf by his Counsel, Mr. Gray, who has presented the case on his behalf in a very clear and helpful manner to the Court, that Gatenby had spent his life battling with his homosexual inclinations, and that apart from this lapse in 1954 there is nothing against him in this respect or in any other respect, up to 1970. The atmosphere at his professional activities as such has to tend to increase his temptations, but up to that occasion he had resisted them. He and Crawford had never previously indulged in homosexual activities together; he said he had no idea from Crawford’s telephone conversation that the young friend whom he suggested bringing round would turn out to be a boy of 13. When he found what the situation was in the flat, the temptation was too much for him and he yielded to it, but immediately it happened he was appalled at what he had done. He admitted that the books that had been shown to the boy belonged to him; he said he had them from another member of the cast of the television show but that he had not himself shown them to the boy of course he knew that they were being shown, and he undoubtedly took part in this disgusting piece of behaviour with the two men and the boy together.

In sentencing Crawford the learned Judge observed that he was not going to assume that the Applicant had either corrupted the boy or buggered him. Nevertheless his treatment with the boy during the association had been appalling, and he went on to say that the Applicant’s activities during the past two years indicated that he was a very dangerous person to have anything to do with small boys.

The Court entirely agrees with those observations of the learned Judge. This was clearly a case where neither of the two men could escape custodial punishment. Assuming in their favour that the boy was not without previous experience at the time, this behaviour to him was certainly such as to corrupt him further. Crawford’s conduct, persisted in over this period of the most revolting character, taken in conjunction with his previous record in relation to small boys, is such in the view of this Court that the imprisonment imposed on him is not a day too long.

Gatenby was a very different case. He came into the picture at a late stage. It certainly should be taken in his favour that having the great misfortune of these homosexual tendencies, he has avoided anything of this kind up to the age of 40, and in the view of the Court the period that he has already been in prison is sufficient punishment for what he did. Therefore the application will be granted, the appeal will be allowed and the sentence reduced to such term of imprisonment as will enable him to be released tomorrow.

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.
  • One in Four [C]
  • 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
  • A Prescription for me blog Various emotional support links [M]
  • ShatterBoys -“Male Survivors Of Childhood Sexual Abuse Inspiring change, Through Shared Experience Whilst Building Connections…Together We Can Heal” [N]

Links

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, Court, South East, Yorkshire and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Andrew Crawford and Raymond Gatenby 25th Jan 1971 Court of Appeal

  1. Pingback: An Index and Timeline of Court and Court of Appeal Documents on Cathy Fox Blog | cathy fox blog on child abuse

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