Malcolm Jack Raywood tag

Reblogged via https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/05/10/court-of-appeal-10th-february-1986-john-henry-lawrence-read/

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” I have thus “assault redacted” across most of the spectrum of abuse. This 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 information is mainly names of the perpetrators, past addresses, the actual charges the perpetrators faced – on which newspapers are pathetically inaccurate and this information enables the links between people and places and abuse at various times to be ascertained.

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

For An Index / Timeline of Court Appeal Documents on Cathy Fox Blog [1]

This post is relevant to Paedophilia around Piccadilly Part 4- Playland Trial and Cover Up [2]

John Henry Lawrence Read (estate agent)

[1986] EWCA Crim J0210-9

No. 4057/C/85

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

Monday, 10th February 1986
Before:

Lord Justice Croom-Johnson

Mr. Justice Kenneth Jones

and

Sir John Thompson

Regina
v.

John Henry Lawrence Read

(Transcript of the Shorthand Notes of Marten Walsh Cherer Ltd., Pemberton
House, East Harding Street, London EC4A 3AS. Telephone Numbers: 01-583
7635, 01-583 0889. Shorthand Writers to the Court)

MR. S. BATTEN appeared as Counsel on behalf of the Appellant.

JUDGMENT

(As approved by Judge)

MR. JUSTICE KENNETH JONES : On 6th June of last year the appellant pleaded
guilty to many counts in two indictments and was sentenced on the following
day. The first indictment was concerned with offences of a sexual nature
and the total sentence on that
indictment was 2½ years’ imprisonment. The offences on the second
indictment were of dishonesty, and the total sentence for those was 3
years’ imprisonment. The learned judge ordered that the sentences be served
consecutively, so in the event the appellant was made subject to a total of
54 years’ imprisonment. He now appeals against sentence by leave of the
Single Judge.

Mr. Batten, who has argued the appeal with moderation and great skill, told
us at the opening of his speech that all of his submissions were directed
to one matter, the totality of the sentence. He did not seek to criticise
the individual sentences but has argued that the total sentence was
excessive for this offender.

Before the facts are set out it is necessary to describe the counts. In the
first indictment there was a charge of indecent assault upon a male person
and there was another of living on the earnings of male prostitution. For
the latter offence the appellant was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment,
and for the indecent assault to 12 months’ imprisonment. On a count of
gross indecency the sentence was three months’ imprisonment concurrent with
the sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment, the 12 months being consecutive to
the sentence of 18 months, thus producing on that indictment a total of 2½
years’ imprisonment.

The indecent assault was on a lad whose Christian name was [redacted] Boy A . He was
born on [redacted] 1967. In July, 1982, when he was only about 14
years of age, he ran away from home. He was picked up in an amusement arcade
at Piccadilly Circus by a man named Cooke, who was later to appear as a
co-accused with the appellant but who was dealt with later, we are told,
and sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment for a variety of sexual
offences in relation to young men. Be that as it may, Cooke picked up this
young lad and took him back to his flat, where sexual activity took place.
The lad was then left at another amusement arcade. When on the following
evening Cooke did not meet the lad, the latter went back to the flat and
there found the appellant. He stayed there the night. No indecency took
place on that occasion, but the next night he shared a bed with the
appellant and they [assault redacted]. After that he lived with the
appellant until the appellant’s arrest in November, 1984. He lived with the
appellant in the sense that he lived under the same roof and was looked
after by him for from 2 to 2½ years. It may be that sexual activity
continued beyond what is alleged in the first count in the indictment. At
the highest it was agreed to have been confined to the very early stages of
that relationship and that for by far the greater part of that period of 2
to 2½ years no sexual activity took place between them.

The count of gross indecency related to another lad altogether who towards
the end of 1983 had begun a career as a male prostitute. He was picked up
by the appellant in an amusement arcade in Wardour Street late in 1984,
when he was nearly 18 years of age. He went bad; to the appellant’s flat
and spent the night with the appellant. Some sexual activity took place for
which the appellant paid him £5. The appellant was arrested the following
day.

The most serious charge in the first indictment was that of living on the
earnings of male prostitution. That charge was based upon evidence of
observations carried out by police officers between August and November,
1984. Over that period they had
observed the appellant, who was sometimes accompanied by Cooke and another
man, Raywood. The appellant was seen to introduce youths and male
prostitutes to “punters”, or customers, at such places as public lavatories
at Victoria and Euston railway stations, amusement arcades, Wimpey bars,
and on at least one occasion at an hotel in the west end of London. On
occasions police officers saw money being exchanged and this appellant
receive money from the youths or their customers. Indeed on some occasions
after the introduction had been effected and money had changed hands they
observed sexual activity taking place between the male prostitute and his
customer. That was the distasteful activity disfiguring this city in which
the appellant participated and from which he profited for some months in
1984 and for which he was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment.

The second indictment, as has been said, contained counts of dishonesty
which started with three counts of theft. When the appellant was arrested
and his premises were searched the police found two cheque books in the
name of someone called Pxxxxx, a Barclaycard in the name of Sxxxxxx and a
cheque book in the name of Wxxxx. These had been stolen sometime
previously by the appellant when he was working as or for an estate agent
and bad the opportunity to go into houses. The remaining counts in that
indictment referred to the dishonest use to which the appellant put those
stolen items. The first count, which related to the theft of a cheque book,
was followed by a charge of forgery. There the appellant opened a
bank-account in the false name of Underwood and forged a cheque from
Pxxxx’s cheque book for £450 to be paid to the account in the name of
Underwood. For the theft he was sentenced to 9 months’ imprisonment and for
the forgery to 12
months’ imprisonment, those sentences to be served concurrently.

The picture repeated itself. The offence of stealing the Barclaycard in the
name of Sxxxxxx was followed by an offence of forgery. The appellant
altered the signature on the Barclaycard to enable him to use it. There
then followed three counts of obtaining property by deception by using the
card to obtain goods. For the theft he was sentenced to 9 months’
imprisonment, and for the further offences of forgery and obtaining
property by deception to 12 months’ imprisonment, again concurrent.

Finally, the theft of Mr. Wxxxx’s cheque book was followed by an offence
of forgery. The appellant forged one of the cheques in the sum of £152, For
the theft he was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment and for the forgery
to 12 months’ imprisonment concurrent.

There were therefore three groups of offences, in respect of which the
appellant was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment on each group. The
learned judge made those sentences of 12 months consecutive, thus producing
the total sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment. Before we leave that
indictment relating to dishonesty it is right to point out that the
appellant asked for 223 other offences of obtaining property by deception
to be taken into consideration, and that the total amount of money and
property so obtained was not far short of £3,000.

On the appellant’s behalf Mr. Batten has stressed the comparatively minor
nature of the offences of indecent assault and gross indecency in the first
indictment and he has submitted that even the offence of living on the
earnings of male prostitution was not the most serious of its type, though
he
conceded that it was a serious offence. As to the offences of dishonesty,
he has submitted that there was, a connection between them and certain of
those against the boy Andrew in the first indictment. When the appellant
first started to look after the lad he had a good job and savings of some
£3,000. These soon went largely spent on the boy and he then stole from his
employers and was dismissed. His offences committed during almost the whole
of 1984 were again largely for the benefit of the lad Boy A. A striking
feature of the 223 other offences taken into consideration is that while
some were of obtaining money, goods, food and clothing, others were of
obtaining articles that obviously would appeal more to a youth of 15 or 16
than to a middle-aged man such as the appellant. There seems to have been
that connection between the offences of dishonesty and those related to the
boy Boy A. Such an explanation of course, as Mr. Batten concedes, falls
very far short of excusing repeated offences of dishonesty committed over a
substantial period.

Mr. Batten has not disputed that his client deserved a substantial sentence
of imprisonment. But there are here mitigating features. The appellant
co-operated with the police in connection with the offences of dishonesty
and did all he could to assist in the recovery of the goods. He has a poor
record, but save for one lapse in 1981 he had kept out of trouble for 10
years since 1971. That would presumably have continued had he not become
embroiled in these sexual offences. He told the prosecuting authorities
that he was willing to give evidence against his co-defendants, but no
doubt with good reason, they decided not to call him as a witness at their
trials. Be that as it may, he was ready to put
matters right, so far as he could, by giving such evidence.

We have reviewed the offences and the sentences and all the matters that
have been raised in mitigation. We have come to the conclusion that we
should accede to Mr. Batten’s submission to a limited extent. We will
reduce the total sentence of 5½ years’ imprisonment by one year to 4½
years’ imprisonment. That will be achieved by not altering in any way the
total sentence of three years in respect of the second indictment, but in
respect of the first indictment by making the sentences for indecent
assault and gross indecency not consecutive to the sentence for living on
the earnings of male prostitution but concurrent with that sentence. That
will have the effect of reducing the total sentence on the first indictment
from 2½ years to 18 months, to be served consecutively to the sentence on
the second indictment. The total sentence to which the appellant will now
be subject is 4½ years’ imprisonment.

To that limited extent the appeal is allowed.

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. 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.

Links

[1] Cathy Fox Blog 2015 May 8 [constantly updated] An Index / Timeline of Court Appeal Documents on Cathy Fox Blog https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/a-timeline-of-court-and-ewca-documentation-on-cathy-fox-blog/

[2] 2015 May 6 Cathy Fox blog Paedophilia around Piccadilly Part 4- Playland Trial and Cover Up https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/05/06/paedophilia-around-piccadilly-part-4-playland-trial-and-cover-up/

[A] Sanctuary for the Abused http://abusesanctuary.blogspot.co.uk/2006/07/for-survivors-coping-with-triggers-if.html

[B] NAPAC http://www.napac.org.uk/

[C] One in Four http://www.oneinfour.org.uk/

[D] Havoca http://www.havoca.org/HAVOCA_home.htm

[E] SurvivorsJustice Triggers post http://survivorsjustice.com/2014/02/26/triggers-what-are-they-and-how-do-we-work-through-them/

[F] SurvivorsJustice Blog http://survivorsjustice.com/

[G] Jim Hopper Mindfulness http://www.jimhopper.com/mindfulness/

  1. [H] Jim Hopper Meditation http://www.jimhopper.com/mindfulness/#cultivate
Advertisements

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