Barry George Cutler 2011 Oct 26 Court of Appeal – PIE

I think Sir John Thomas judge in this case is likely to be the present Lord Chief Justice who was Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, or  John Thomas, Baron Thomas of Cwmgiedd [4]

He was one of those who “exonerated” Judge Adrian Fulford 2017 Jul 25 cathy fox blog Judge Adrian Fulford – Can we trust him? [3]


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]

[2011] EWCA Crim 2781

No: 201103956/A8-201104389/A8-201104356/A8-201104464/A8


Wednesday, 26th October 2011

Sir John Thomas



Barry George Cutler

Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of WordWave International Limited A Merrill Communications Company 165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

Mr R James appeared on behalf of the Appellant Cutler

Mr J Black (Solicitor/Advocate) appeared on behalf of the Appellant Morrison

Mr W Nash (Solicitor/Advocate) appeared on behalf of the Appellant Parratt

Miss M Dineen appeared on behalf of the Appellant Freeman

Mr M Gadsden appeared on behalf of the Crown


As Approved by the Court


MR JUSTICE SILBER: On 3rd May 2011 at the Central Criminal Court, Steven Adrian Freeman pleaded guilty to 16 counts relating to the possession of indecent images of children. On 5th May 2011, at the same court, Barry George Cutler pleaded guilty to five counts and John William Morrison pleaded guilty to three counts relating to the possession of indecent images of children. On 12th May 2011, at the same court, John Patrick Parratt was convicted by a majority of 10 to 2 of three counts relating to the possession of indecent images of children.

2. On 15th July 2011 the appellants were sentenced at the Central Criminal Court. In the case of Freeman: for eleven counts of possessing indecent photographs of children there was no separate penalty; for three counts of distributing indecent photographs of children, he received a sentence of imprisonment for public protection, with a minimum term of 30 months less time spent on remand. There was no separate penalty imposed on him for failing to disclose a key to protected information contrary to section 53(1) and (5) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and a count of possessing prohibited images of a child contrary to section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. In the case of Cutler, he received a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment concurrent on four counts of possessing indecent photographs of a child. He also received a consecutive sentence of 3 months’ imprisonment for failing to disclose a key to protected information, again contrary to section 53(1) and (5) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. Morrison received a term of 4 years extended consisting of a 2 year custodial term and 2 years extended licence concurrent on each of three counts for possessing indecent photographs of a child. Parratt received sentences of 12 months’ imprisonment concurrent for three counts of possessing indecent photographs of a child. The appellants appeal against the sentences imposed on them by leave of the single judge.

3. The background to these charges is that in 2008 the police started to target a paedophile ring which regularly met at Freeman’s own house and where their aim was to view and share indecent photographs of children. A search warrant was executed on those premises on 24th July, where computer equipment and pornographic drawings of children were seized. There were also some drawings openly on display and the prosecution case was that they were to be viewed and shared by those present, namely Freeman, Cutler, Morrison and Parratt. Later all their addresses were searched and computer equipment was seized. The computer equipment was examined and found to have indecent images of children and the computer of Freeman contained extensive correspondence.

4. Just under 3 weeks later, on 19th August 2008, Freeman posted an Internet message under the name “Alcibiades” which read as follows:

“Time for some more bad news then I’m afraid. For over ten years now I’ve been hosting regular weekly gatherings of former PIE colleagues [that is the Paedophile Information Exchange which was an organisation disbanded in the 1980s and Freeman had been the chairman of that organisation and Parratt had been an Executive Committee member using the name Warren Middleton] with occasional visits from other other paed friends or friends of friends. Four weeks ago on one of those evenings, at about 8 pm, my house was invaded by a dozen or so shouting people brandishing weapons. It was a police raid. I and five of my friends were arrested. Each of our homes was searched on a warrant for conspiracy to distribute indecent images of children. We were all held overnight at various police stations and released the next day.”

In an another article Freeman wrote as follows:

“The anonymity of the internet allows paedophiles to communicate more freely with one another than was physically or legally possible before. It is a massive enabling technology. The question for the thinking paedophile of today is: how do we make best use of this technology to further our collective interest? How do we translate the limited freedom of the web into the greater social freedoms we seek? How can this cyber community help us to promote a greater tolerance and understanding? When we finish talking to one another sooner or later we must begin talking again to the world at large, addressing its fears and suspicions. How, where and when we take that step should be the abiding question for all of us.”

There were other writings which had been done for Freeman’s own gratifications and it was clear that he was not ashamed of his actions. The writings also showed further references to indecent images and his wish to have sex with boys. One of the objectives of a game on his computer was to have sex with school boys.

5. So far as the case against Freeman is concerned, the counts in relation to possessing indecent photographs comprise his possession of still and moving images, with the exception of the last one which reflected all the images in his possession. There were 5417 still images, 31 moving images and 24 paper based images. Of those images, 4780 were at level 1, 500 at level 2, 41 at level 3, 73 at level 4 and 23 at level 5.

6. As to the charge of failing to disclose a key to protected information, there were six encrypted containers at Freeman’s house, three on computer and three on discs. He was duly served with a notice under section 49 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, requiring him to disclose a code to access those encrypted containers. He did not do so and in response to the notice, he said there was no encryption software on his computer.

7. As to the count of possession prohibited images, this related to 3062 pornographic drawings of children which were recovered from his house: 810 depicted penetration of children, some were in black and white and others had been coloured in.

8. Turning now to the position of Freeman, Morrison and Parratt: three separate discs were found at the home shared by Morrison and Parratt which had been burned on Freeman’s computer. The disc contained 5738 still images and nine moving images: 5206 were at level; 382 at level 2; 11 at level 3; 58 at level 4 and 30 at level 5. There were also counts relating to Freeman’s distribution of the disc to Morrison and Parratt.

9. Morrison entered a basis of plea, which stated that he had no interest in images of children, other than those in which they are clothed and that; he is interested in children’s clothing. He accepts possession of the three discs containing the image and he opened and viewed disks and attempted to delete offending images. On the basis he knew what was on the disc he suspected that the other disc contained material of a similar nature. He was not aware of the quantity of these images and the offending images are a fraction of at least a total number of 30,000 images on the discs. The prosecution did not accept that Morrison had no interest in the images of children but there was no Newton hearing.

10. Turning now to the case of Cutler, there were two counts relating to him which related to possessing indecent images. There was one which reflected a level 4 moving image in his possession, and again there was a rolled up count reflecting all of the 57 images agreed to be in Cutler’s possession. He entered a basis of plea to the rolled up provision saying that he accepted 19 still images al level 1, 20 at level 2, two moving images at level 1, four moving images at level 2, one moving image at level 4 and 11 paper best images at level 1.

11. In relation to the count of failing to disclose a key to protected information, these were encrypted containers on his computer and he was served with the relevant notice requiring him to the disclose the key but he has failed to do so.

12. Turning now to the background of these appellants, Steven Freeman is now 56 years of age. He has one previous conviction, in 1991, when he sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment for possessing an obscene article and 6 months concurrent for sending offending material.

13. The pre-sentence report records, first, that Freeman, who is or was the chairman of Paedophile Information Exchange and its contact with the North American Lug Boys had admitted to being the leader in the offences, and second, that he had difficulty in understanding the potential risk of harm he poses to children, especially in appreciating the link between his distorted sexual impulses and the potential sexual behaviour towards children.

14. Freeman explained, according to the writer of the pre-sentence report, first that he only liked children between the ages of 11 and 14 and second that in his opinion children of that age should be allowed to have sex with adults.

15. The writer of the pre-sentence report considered that Freeman did not take responsibility for his offending and he appeared to have a rigid and dogmatic approach to children. The writer also explained that Freeman was not prepared to undertake a sex offender treatment programme to gain some insight into the behaviour which led to his conviction, because he first believed that his behaviour was innocent, and secondly, he did not have sexual offending issues. I mention in passing that we were told in submissions that that this did not reflect his position, but the writer of the report considered that Freeman might not be well motivated to engage with any accredited system to increase his understanding. It was also stated that during his interview with the writer of the report, Freeman talked about the rights of paedophiles to have sex with children and he, according to the writer of report, had little insight into his sexual offending and its direct impact upon the victims, namely children.

16. In the view of the writer of the report, it was:

“Reasonable for a court to presume that Mr Freeman presents a significant risk of serious harm to children within the general public. Internet sexual offences may cause a potential victim, namely children serious psychological injury.”

17. Turning now to Cutler: he is 60 years of age with no previous court appearances. He became a member of the Paedophile Information Exchange about 30 years ago though it no longer exists.

18. The pre-sentence report recorded that he was a homosexual and sexually attracted to young men both adults and of approximate mid-teenage years. He told the writer of the report that he was sexually aroused by indecent images of children aged 14 or 15 years of age but the writer of the report thought that he was also sexually aroused by younger people. According to the report, Cutler created the impression that he had not fully understood the damage of viewing child pornography causes the victims. It was stated in the report, and supported by medical evidence, that Cutler suffers from Social Phobic Disorder and that although he had found some remedial programs quite stressful to start with, he indicate he would attend and comply with it.

19. Turning to Morrison, he is now 44 years of age and he has appeared before the courts on 29 previous occasions for nearly 100 offences, between 1984 and 2010, for which he had received a range of custodial and non-custodial sentences. Most of his previous offences were for dishonesty but in December 2008 he was fined and given an indefinite sexual offence protection order for five offences of possessing indecent photographs of a child. In March 2009 a community order was imposed for breaching that order, but in June 2010 he was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment for breaching the order and 2 months consecutive for sending a letter conveying an indecent or grossly offensive imagine. Finally, in December 2010 he was sentenced to a further 4 months for acting in breach of the order.

20. The writer of the report noted that Morrison denied any sexual gratification or interest in the images or movies. He claimed that he had been recruited by the police to break in a paedophile ring and he said that his fetish was in respect of children’s clothing and what he wanted was pictures of children clothed rather than naked. Morrison explained that he had taken the CD which was found in his apartment from Freeman on the understanding that it had photographs of grown children but he had been unable to unload it.

21. The writer of the report said that Morrison denied any sexual element in his offending and he refused to attend and complete any offence focussed sexual offending work. According to the writer of the pre-sentence report, the fact that Morrison had broken his sex offender prevention order on three occasions raised concerns in terms of risks and that was particularly so because he lives with Parratt, who is a known homosexual.

22. The writer of the report concluded that Morrison presents a risk to the public of violence and he poses a risk of serious harm of serious risk occasioned by the permission of further offences. It is said that he poses the greatest risk of harm towards children, bearing in mind this is his fourth conviction for sexual offences which involves the victims being children. It is noteworthy that the writer of the report had been Morrison’s probation officer since March 2009. The writer of the report pointed out that an extended sentence for public protection was available to provide Morrison a period in custody, whilst the extended supervision element on release would ensure a robust risk management plan monitoring.

23. Turning to Parratt, he is now 63 years of age and he had appeared before the court on a previous occasion, in 1966, when he was given a probation order for gross indecency with a child under 16. In 1969 he was fined for theft. His further conviction was in 1970, when he was given a suspended sentence for gross indecency with a male under the age of 21.

24. In sentencing the appellant, the judge explained that Freeman was an intelligent and articulate man and was well aware that his conduct was outside the law, though he did not regard it as an offence. The judge regarded him as being the centre of the network and his conduct was activated by his long-standing, carefully organised campaign in relation to child pornography.

25. In the light of the material before the court and the writings of Freeman the court was led inextricably to the view that he was dangerous, particularly to young persons and so a sentence of imprisonment for public protection was appropriate and he received credit for his plea.

26. In the case of Cutler his guilty plea, previous good character and the submissions taken on his behalf were taken into account but this was a case for a custodial sentence.

27. As for Morrison, the Recorder took the view that he was “dangerous” particularly to young persons and an extended sentence was appropriate. He had been convicted of possessing just over 5000 images, mostly at level 1 and 2 and a few at level 4 and 5. So he was in different position from his co-defendants but his attendance and possession of the materials meant that a custodial sentence was appropriate.

28. Turning to the grounds of appeal of Freeman, the first ground is that the Recorder erred in passing the sentence of imprisonment for public protection because there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the defendant represented a significant risk of serious harm through the commission of further specified offences.

29. We had to consider this case against the background of the decision of this court in the case of R v Terrell [2007] EWCA Crim 3079 , [2008] 2 Cr App R(S) 49 , in which this court had to consider whether it was appropriate to impose such a sentence where the conviction related to photographs and did not have any contact offences. It was regarded as important to this court that the trial judge did not find that the offences that might be committed in the future were different or graver than those which he had already committed and it was not suggested that he risked progressing to physical contact. The harm relied on was the harm of children that had been forced to participate in the activities. The conclusion of the court was that it could not be reasonably said that there was a significant risk of this defendant’s re-offending occasioning harm to children, whether through perpetuating the market or further indecent images being taken, albeit through a child becoming aware of the indecent purposes to which the photographs might be put. The link between the act of downloading and possible harm which might be done to children was too remote and therefore the IPP provision did not apply. That case has been regularly applied by this court. Our attention was drawn to the case of R v Helliwell [2011] EWCA 1008 , where Rix LJ noted that the trial judge who imposed a sentence of imprisonment for public protection:

“… was not putting his findings of dangerousness on the basis of the Internet use or distribution in themselves but upon a finding that there was a significant risk that Mr Helliwell would escalate his offending to direct contact offences.”

The judge concluded that the appellant in that case had not previously committed any contact offences and he therefore concluded:

“We do not consider that there was the evidential basis of a significant risk that Mr Helliwell would go on to commit a crime, the nature of which he had not committed in his life before, he being a mature man of now 49.”

For that reason the appeal was allowed.

30. In a more recent case of Guest [2011] EWCA Crim 1762 , a similar view was taken by this court.

31. Bearing those principles in mind, we have had to consider whether what the Recorder did was correct. Unfortunately in his sentencing remarks, he did not grapple fully or at all with these problems and we therefore have to look at them afresh. We have come to the conclusion that the dangerous threshold has been met in this case. In the light of the Internet messages posted by this appellant, which was on the 19th August, which was under 4 weeks after his premises had been searched and seized. They tended to show that he would be getting involved in paedophile activities and continued to do so.

32. It is of greatest significance to us that this appellant continues, as was said in the pre-sentence report, to believe that adults should be allowed to have sex with children so there was a significant substantial risk of this appellant committing contact offences against young children and causing them serious damage. He also demonstrates a lack of empathy with his victims. We therefore have come to the conclusion that, unlike the appellants in the cases to which we have referred, that this appellant does cross the threshold and the judge was correct to impose a sentence for public protection.

33. The second ground of appeal relied on by Freeman is that the Recorder erred in finding that it was necessary to impose a sexual offences prevention order when he had already passed an indefinite sentence. The prosecution agree that this ground of appeal is correct and we also take the same line because more recently in the case of Smith, Wayne, Hall and Dodd Hughes LJ, giving the judgment of this court, said that the appropriate time for deciding the conditions on which somebody will be released when they have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for public protection is at the time of their release when the licence conditions can be tailored to meet their needs. Thus, we allow the appeal to the extent of removing the sexual offences prevention order.

34. Turning to the case of Cutler, he appeals on the grounds that the custodial sentence was manifestly excessive, having regard to the Sentencing Guidelines, the credit for his plea and the disparity of the sentence with Parratt. His second ground of appeal is that the sexual offences prevention order was too wide and unnecessary for oppressive or not in the least proportionate. We will deal with all the appeals relating to the sexual offences prevention orders imposed on the appellant at the end of this judgment.

35. So far as the length of sentence is concerned, it has to be borne in mind that this appellant was to be sentenced not merely for possession of the indecent photographs but also for the offence of failing to disclose a key to protected information. We regard that as being a very serious offence because it interferes with the administration of justice and it prevents the prosecuting authorities and the police finding out what offences somebody has committed. At the time when this offence was committed the maximum sentence was 2 years’ imprisonment. In our view, this was a serious case because there were nine encrypted containers on three different hard drives. These containers could have been used for storing the vilest of child pornography. It is noteworthy that Cutler had not merely failed to disclose the key but he has also failed to give any explanation for it whatsoever. We note that one of the co-defendants with them, Adamson, who was convicted of this offence, received a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment. We do not know the full details of it but it might well be that this sentence was too low. We are not purporting to set any guidelines but merely wish to emphasise the gravity of this particular offence.

36. In our view, in respect of that offence, the Recorder would have been quite entitled to impose a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment. It would also follow that if that sentence had been imposed, Cutler would have to receive a custodial sentence for his possession of indecent photographs and our view would be that 3 months consecutive would have been appropriate. Thus, the overall effect would be that the total sentence would be no different from the sentence which was imposed on him. Therefore his appeal against his prison sentence has to be dismissed.

37. Turning now to the appeal of Morrison, he challenges the finding of dangerousness and contends that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

38. The pre-sentence report noted that this was his fourth conviction for a sexual offence and there was an established pattern of sexual offending, particularly the way he had dealt with his sexual offences prevention order. It must not be forgotten that the discs found at the home shared by Morrison and Parratt had been burned from Freeman’s computer and contained 5738 still images and nine moving images; of those 5266 were at level 1, 382 at level 2, 11 at level 3, 58 at level 4 and 30 at level 5.

39. The pre-sentence report indicated that he poses the greatest risk of harm towards children, bearing in mind this is his fourth conviction for a sexual offence which involved the victims being children. The writer of the report had been Morrison’s probation officer since March 2009. He recommended an extended sentence for public protection, so as to impress on him the seriousness of his offending and to protect the public in the light of the appellant’s previous record.

40. In our view, the appropriate course for this court is to see what sort of sentence ought to have been imposed in this case. We take account of the fact that Parratt received a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment but this appellant, as we have indicated, has a bad record.

41. We have come to the conclusion that the appropriate sentence that should have been imposed in his case would have been two-and-a-half years’ imprisonment. The consequences of that is that the extended sentence can no longer stand. To that extent his appeal succeeds.

42. That takes us on to the outstanding matter which relates to the sexual offences prevention order imposed on the appellants. We have received very detailed submissions from counsel for that, for which we are grateful. We gave them, at the start of the hearing, before their case was called on, draft orders which we thought it prudent for them to consider in the light of the decision of this court in Smith , to which we have already referred. They were able to reach agreement on what the terms of it should contain and subject to a number of points to which we refer, the terms of that document are to be applicable to all of those who are liable to it, which is all the appellants other than Freeman. They state:-

“Schedule of Prohibitions

(Sexual Offences Prevention Order)

1. Using any device capable of accessing the internet;

(i) which does not have a software programme designed to prevent access to child pornography installed in operation; and

(ii) which does not have the capacity to retain and display the history of internet use; and

(iii) which must be made immediately available on request for inspection by any police officer.

2. Deleting such history.

3. Installing any encryption-only software; for example: Jetico Best Crypt or Pretty Good Privacy;

4. Accessing, seeking to access, viewing, possessing (save in a Temporary Cache computer file, downloading saving or distributing images of children under 18 years from the internet or any other non-commercial source, save with permission of that child’s parent or guardian who has full knowledge of his sexual offending history

5. Filming or taking photographs with any image capturing device of any child under the age of 16 years unless it is with the permission of that child’s parent or guardian who has full knowledge of his sexual offending history, other than images incidental to the main image being captured;

6. Having any unsupervised contact of any kind with any child under the age of 16 years, other than:

(i) such as is inadvertent and not reasonably avoidable in the course of daily life; or

(ii) with the consent of the child’s parent or guardian who has knowledge of his convictions;

7. Engaging in any form of teaching or training or instruction of children under the age of 16 years, any form of care, advice, guidance or therapy or from acting as a driver for such children’s activities;

8. Meeting or seeking to meet in private or public any group of individuals having a sexual interest in children where that interest in children is the primary reason for the meeting, and that group comprises more than two people together and includes but is not limited to Barry George Cutler, John William Morrison, Leo Gareth Adamson, Anthony Zalewski and Stephen Adrian Freeman.


42.1. There are some points made by the individual appellants, to which we must refer. In the case of Cutler, he accepts paragraphs 1 to 3 of the draft but says that as he is a 60-year-old man with no previous convictions, he should not have conditions not giving him access to images and various other matters of that sort. We do not consider that to be a valid point. It is clear that he was involved and present when the premises of Freeman were searched and where there were drawings on display and there were computer material around the place. As we have already explained, he has also been convicted of failing to disclose the key to protected information. That suggests that he must have some form of access to computers. Therefore we take the view that he should be bound by the order.

42.2. So far as the others are concerned, none of the grounds that have been put forward seem to us to have any validity as showing why an order should not be made in their cases. Therefore, we make it in the case of all the appellants with the exception of Freeman and we explain why it does not relate to Freeman. In reaching our conclusions we have taken into account all the matters and material that has been helpfully put forward by counsel on our behalf.

42.3. For those reasons, the appeal of Freeman is allowed to the extent of removing the sexual offences prevention order and in case of Morrison, the period of his sentence of 4 years is reduced to two-and-a-half years. To that extent the appeals are dismissed.

42.4. SIR JOHN THOMAS: There are two matters. First of all, we would like to thank you all very much for the assistance that you have given us today and in particular in taking time to try to agree the sexual offences prevention orders. It would be of assistance if you could try amongst your colleagues to ensure that these standard terms are more frequently discussed and appeals on these sort of points avoided where you get involved in these cases in the future. We have a lot of appeals that turn on the bad drafting. I think things should now be much better in the light of Hughes LJ’s judgment.

42.5. The second thing which we wanted to say was this. In the light of the history of this matter we will ask the Central Criminal Court to advise us on the circumstances in which this case was listed before someone other than a full-time judge, as we think the seriousness and difficulty of this case did require a full-time judge. That seems to have been counsel for the Crown’s view but, of course, he understandably could not express that view to the listing officer.

42.6. MR GADSDEN: Thank you my Lord.

42.7. SIR JOHN THOMAS: That is a fair observation from what you have said?

42.8. MR GADSDEN: It is my Lord, yes, although, as your Lordship quite rightly says, I could not quite articulate it like that in your Lordship’s court.

42.9. SIR JOHN THOMAS: It seems to us that this sort of case is a very serious and very difficult case; it produces not only a difficult trial but difficult sentencing problems. We shall ask the Central Criminal Court —it better be done through whoever the most senior, probably through the court manager —as to how this happened and we would like it to be ensured it does not happen again.

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]
  • Fresh Start Foundation Scottish not for profit group, helping child sexual abuse victims & survivors  [P]


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

[2] Index of Court Appeals EWCA on this blog

[3] 2017 Jul 25 cathy fox blog Judge Adrian Fulford – Can we trust him?

[4] 2017 Jul 24  re 2014 Wikipedia John Thomas, Baron Thomas of Cwmgiedd,_Baron_Thomas_of_Cwmgiedd

Let justice be done though the heavens fall – Fiat justitia ruat cælum

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, Child sexual abuse, Court, Indecent Images, London, Paedophile Information Exchange and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Barry George Cutler 2011 Oct 26 Court of Appeal – PIE


    Reblogged this on HOLLIE GREIG JUSTICE E mail and commented:
    George was also on the RAINES list

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Pingback: cath fox Barry George Cutler 2011 Oct 26 Court of Appeal – PIE | HOLLIE GREIG JUSTICE E mail

  3. Pingback: Barry George Cutler 2011 Oct 26 Court of Appeal – PIE | L8in

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

  5. Pingback: Links of cathyfoxblog posts 2013 – 2021 | cathy fox blog on child abuse

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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.