Fred Ernest Jay was appealing against sentence for charges of indecent assault to buggery on 14 -17 year olds. He also had been convicted of previous indecent assaults in 1972.
It is claimed that Jay kept a lid on his impulses until aged 60.He is described as having “done excellent work with boys’ clubs and boy scouts and the like” !
Geographical location is not certain but thought to be around Hampshire as once he was tried at Winchester Crown Court and Old Manor Hospital at Salisbury is mentioned.
Appeal was dismissed.
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 
Index of Court Appeals on this blog 
 EWCA Crim J0120-4
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
Friday, 20th January 1978
Lord Justice Bridge
Regina v. Ernest Fred Jay
(From the Shorthand Notes of Walsh, Cherer & Co. Ltd., 55-57 Clifford’s Inn, Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1BU. Telephone Number: 01-242 7057. Shorthand Writers to the Court.)
MR. N. PASCOE appeared for the Appellant.
(As approved by Judge)
LORD JUSTICE BRIDGE: On 26th May of last year, this Appellant was arraigned on an indictment which contained four counts against him, to which he pleaded guilty, of four homosexual offences with boys.
The first pair of counts relating to a 14 year old boy was for one offence of indecent assault and for one of assault with intent to commit buggery. The second pair related to offences with a 17 year old boy and charged him with one offence of gross indecency and one actual offence of buggery.
The Appellant was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment on each pair of counts, the terms of two years to be consecutive to each other making a total term of four years’ imprisonment.
With him in the dock, also pleading guilty to two offences of gross indecency and buggery, was the 17 year old boy and, in addition, the 17 year old boy asked the Court to take into consideration a number of offences of dishonesty. He was sentenced to Borstal training.
The Appellant now appeals against his sentence by leave of the single Judge.
The Appellant is a man of 70. He has one previous conviction, at the Winchester Crown Court in 1972 when he pleaded guilty to three counts of indecent assaults upon boys and five counts of gross indecency. On that occasion, he was sentenced to a total of three years’ imprisonment.
Leaving aside for a moment the question of his age, having regard to the circumstances of these offences and the fact that he is a man with a previous conviction for serious offences with boys, it would be impossible to say that the total sentence of four years was excessive.
It is unnecessary to go into the details of these offences. The indecent assault in respect of the 14 year old boy involved an act of oral masturbation. The assault with intent to commit buggery with this 14 year old boy was precisely what the count indicated – an assault upon the boy in an attempt to bugger him.
As regards the offences with the 17 year old boy, it is true to say that the boy in the confession statement he made to the police officers had given a very different account of what had happened from the account given in the admission made to investigating officers by this Appellant. Putting the matter quite shortly the boy said that the Appellant had made all the running; if I may use that colloquial expression. The Appellant Â£ said it was precisely the other way round. But having regard to their respective ages and having regard to what we are able to glean from the medical reports on the Appellant, it seems highly probable that the truth was nearer to the boy’s account than to the Appellant’s, though it is right and fair to say that whereas, according to the boy’s account, he had been corrupted by this Appellant at an early age, the Crown were unable to express a firm view to the Court as to whether that part of the youth’s account was correct or not. It is right, therefore, to disregard that aspect of the matter.
But, as stated earlier, if one overlooks the age and medical condition of this Appellant, it would be difficult to say that there was any error in principle in the sentences imposed by the learned trial Judge or that it was a manifestly excessive sentence.
The learned Judge was urged, as we have been urged in the presentation of this Appeal, to take the view that the proper disposal in this case was the making of a probation order with a condition requiring the Appellant to submit to medical treatment. A- substantial body of medical evidence, to which it will be necessary to refer in a minute, was put before the learned Judge.
In passing sentence, he said, “You are, I am afraid, despite your age, a menace to young men. You have got this workshop which attracts young men to apprenticeship, and it is not the apprenticeship to printing that they always serve with you. I have a duty to protect boys like that, and I can only do that by, again, sending you to prison, reluctant as I am to do so in the case of a man of 70 who has otherwise admirable qualities. I have considered very carefully the evidence of Dr. Simpson,” and I interpose here to say he is the principal psychiatrist upon whom the defence relied, “as to whether I can take any other course, having regard to the nature of these offences and to the mental deterioration which I understand you are to some extent suffering from. I regret that I cannot do so.” The question is whether the learned Judge was right in coming to that conclusion.
On any view, this is an extremely sad case, especially as this Appellant, although it is perfectly clear that he has always been homosexually orientated, was able, until he passed the age of 60, either to control his homosexual inclinations or, at all events, to direct them into channels which did not bring him into conflict with the criminal law. His occupation put him in a position in which he employed boys and young men. He also, throughout his life, has done excellent work with boys’ clubs and boy scouts and the like. As the medical evidence showed, over the advancing years, he has suffered from some organic cerebral deterioration, and this appears from the report of Dr. Simpson which was before the Court when the Appellant fell to be sentenced on the previous occasion in 1972: “It is a well established clinical fact that a diminution of inhibitory control of underlying personality traits,” (in this case, I interpose, an underlying homosexual inclination), “is a feature of the syndrome of organic cerebral deterioration.”
In the report of Dr. Simpson, which was before the trial Judge, it was urged that a proper course would be to make a probation order with a condition that the Appellant undergo treatment at the Old Manor Hospital, Salisbury, a hospital of which Dr. Simpson, a most eminent psychiatrist, is the medical director. Dr. Simpson said in that report: “Mr. Jay has agreed, if he is at liberty, to accept out-patient treatment and supervision. I think he could be helped by drug therapy which, although it does not alter the direction of any sexual drive, has been proved efficacious in diminishing the intensity of any sexual desire and one would therefore hope in Mr. Jay’s case that it would help him to keep his homosexual inclinations under control. However, I must add that although Mr. Jay agreed to this proposal, it was with reluctance. He did not see why his sexual feelings should be ‘messed about with.’ I therefore must say that I have reservations as to whether Mr. Jay would co-operate fully in any treatment programme.”
Another report which was before the Court on which the defence placed reliance was from Dr. Mansbridge, the doctor at Exeter Prison, a doctor of great experience in this field, who said: “The Court might feel that if he were to give assurances that under probation supervision he would attend a clinic regularly for hormonal ablation of all sexual urges, the juvenile public would thereby be safeguarded.” He added: “The perennial difficulty in these cases, however, being to ensure that the patient continues to attend for treatment.”
That was the essence of the material before the Judge and the material which, as indicated in the passage often cited from what the learned Judge said in passing sentence, failed to persuade him that the disposal suggested on the Appellant’s behalf was a course he could properly take.
There is a certain amount of additional material before this Court which, as Mr. Pascoe, who has said everything that can possibly be said for this Appellant in a most persuasive way, has had to accept, is substantially against him. The Appellant has been serving his prison sentence at Wormwood Scrubs, a prison where the psychiatrist is Dr. Henry Field, who is acknowledged to be a leading expert in this department of medicine. He adverts to the Appellant’s present condition in these terms: “Unfortunately, Mr. Jay suffers from what I can best describe as the ‘the ostrich syndrome’. There are some offenders who have an infinite capacity for self-deception and are able to rationalise and justify their anti-social behaviour so as to practically absolve themselves from any kind of moral guilt. Mr. Jay is a master at it.” A little later on he says: “Put quite simply, Mr. Jay was absolutely adamant that he was not in need of any form of treatment and that the only reason that he had committed the present offences was that he had been ‘pestered by these boys’. Even when it was pointed out that his previous prison sentence had apparently not acted as a deterrent, he still maintained that he was not in need of any help.”
Then he goes on: “It is a clinical fact that with increasing age and decreasing voluntary control over emotions (often as a result of hardening of the arteries in the brain), there is a tendency for previously well-controlled, anti-social traits to emerge and become manifest. That, I fear, is the situation here and it is regrettable that Mr. Jay is so lacking in insight that he is not prepared to accept help which would at least control his abnormally-orientated sexual drives and prevent further conflict with the law.”
We are told by Mr. Pascoe that, in this respect, Dr. Field has misunderstood the situation, while on Mr. Pascoe’s instructions, we are told that the Appellant is prepared to accept help. We are also invited to consider Dr. Simpson’s comment on the report of Dr. Field to which reference has been made. He said he would find it impossible to disagree with Dr. Field’s comments. He adds, however, that there are other indications that the Appellant might be helped to control his abnormal sexual impulses. He says the Appellant might well co-operate in any treatment now. He again confirms he is willing to provide the necessary treatment which he suggests should be on an out-patient basis with the requirement for daily attendance from Monday to Friday each week “so that the staff can ensure he was taking any prescribed medication.”
The Court has listened with sympathy to all that has been said on this Appellant’s behalf, but on the totality of the material before us we arrive at the same conclusion as that arrived at by the trial Judge that it would be a failure of the Court’s duty to set this Appellant at liberty, even though that would be on condition that he underwent medical treatment, The Court has, as the trial Judge had, a clear duty to protect boys and, sad as it is to see a man in this condition at this age serving a substantial sentence of imprisonment, for the reasons explained the Court can find no ground to interfere with it and the Appeal is dismissed.
1978 Jan 20 [#ScoutsAbuse 6] Ernest Fred Jay Court of Appeal 
1984 May 10 [#ScoutsAbuse 7] John Queen Court of Appeal 
1987 Oct 22 [#ScoutsAbuse 5] Derek Lewis Foster Court of Appeal 
1988 Jun 7 [#ScoutsAbuse 8] William Henry Twigg Court of Appeal 
1999 Jul 29 [#ScoutsAbuse 4] John Oliver Bentley Court of Appeal 
2000 Jun 13 [#ScoutsAbuse 3] Andrew Lee Clark 2000 Jun 13 Court of Appeal 
2006 Jun 19 [#ScoutsAbuse 2] John Anthony Coghlan 2006 Jun 19 Court of Appeal 
2016 Mar 18 [#ScoutsAbuse 1] KCR v Scout Association High Court 
- 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]
- Fresh Start Foundation Scottish not for profit group, helping child sexual abuse victims & survivors [N]
 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/
 2018 Feb 6 cathy fox blog [Scouts 1] KCR v Scout Association High Court 18th March 2016 https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2018/02/06/scouts-1-kcr-v-scout-association-high-court-18th-march-2016/
 2018 Feb 6 cathy fox blog [#ScoutsAbuse 2] John Anthony Coghlan 2006 Jun 19 Court of Appeal https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2018/02/07/scoutsabuse-2-john-anthony-coghlan-2006-jun-19-court-of-appeal/
 2018 Feb 6 cathy fox blog [#ScoutsAbuse 3] Andrew Lee Clark 2000 Jun 13 Court of Appeal https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2018/02/07/scoutsabuse-3-andrew-lee-clark-2000-jun-13-court-of-appeal/
 2018 Feb 6 cathy fox blog [#ScoutsAbuse 4] John Oliver Bentley Court of Appeal 29 Jul 1999 https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2018/02/07/scoutsabuse-4-john-oliver-bentley-court-of-appeal-29-jul-1999/
 2018 Feb cathy fox blog [#ScoutsAbuse 5] Derek Lewis Foster 22nd October 1987 Court of Appeal https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2018/02/08/scoutsabuse-5-derek-lewis-foster-22nd-october-1987-court-of-appeal/
 2018 Feb 9 cathy fox blog [#ScoutsAbuse 6] Ernest Fred Jay 1978 Jan 20 Court of Appeal https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2018/02/09/scoutsabuse6-ernest-fred-jay-1978-jan-20-court-of-appeal/
 2018 feb 10 cathy fox blog [#ScoutsAbuse 7] John ueen 1984 May 10 Court of Appeal https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2018/02/10/scoutsabuse7-john-queen-1984-may-10-court-of-appeal/
 2018 feb 10 cathy fox blog [#ScoutsAbuse 8] William Henry Twigg 1988 Jun 7 Court of Appeal https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2018/02/10/tt-tag-check-scoutsabuse-8-william-henry-twigg-1988-jun-7-court-of-appeal/
[A] Sanctuary for the Abused http://abusesanctuary.blogspot.co.uk/2006/07/for-survivors-coping-with-triggers-if.html
Let justice be done though the heavens fall – Fiat justitia ruat cælum
Pingback: An Index and Timeline of Court and Court of Appeal Documents on Cathy Fox Blog | cathy fox blog on child abuse
Reblogged this on circusbuoy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: [#ScoutsAbuse7] John Queen 1984 May 10 Court of Appeal | cathy fox blog on child abuse
Pingback: [#ScoutsAbuse 8] William Henry Twigg 1988 Jun 7 Court of Appeal | cathy fox blog on child abuse
Pingback: [ScoutsAbuse 5] Derek Lewis Foster 22nd October 1987 Court of Appeal | cathy fox blog on child abuse
Pingback: [#ScoutsAbuse 4] John Oliver Bentley Court of Appeal 29 Jul 1999 | cathy fox blog on child abuse
Pingback: [#ScoutsAbuse 3] Andrew Lee Clark 2000 Jun 13 Court of Appeal | cathy fox blog on child abuse
Pingback: [Scouts 1] KCR v Scout Association High Court 18th March 2016 | cathy fox blog on child abuse
Pingback: #ScoutsAbuse 9 – The Lasting Legacy of Childhood Sexual Abuse by Nic Seagull | cathy fox blog on child abuse
Pingback: #ScoutsAbuse 9 – The Lasting Legacy of Childhood Sexual Abuse by Nic Seagull | HOLLIE GREIG JUSTICE : SUPPORTING FRESH START @FSFtruthjustice
Pingback: #ScoutsAbuse 9 – The Lasting Legacy of Childhood Sexual Abuse by Nic Seagull | cathy fox blog on child abuse | circusbuoy
Pingback: #ScoutsAbuse 10 Scouts and Child Sexual Abuse | cathy fox blog on child abuse
Pingback: cathyfox dib dib dob nonce on the job | HOLLIE GREIG JUSTICE
Pingback: Links of cathyfoxblog posts 2013 – 2021 | cathy fox blog on child abuse
Pingback: cathyfox posts spare master – Foxy's Extra Blog