R v Paul Gadd

Sentencing Remarks of HHJ Alistair McCreath

Southwark Crown Court

27th February 2015

1. Approach

1.1 The offences for which I must pass sentence today took place many
years ago at a time when, in particular in respect of one of them, the
maximum sentence was considerably lower than that which is now
available and at a time when the sentencing climate was less severe
than it now is.

1.2 There is clear guidance as to how I should approach this task, set out in
Annex B to the Sexual Offences Definitive Guideline.

1.3 I set them out, to the extent that they are relevant to your case.

1.4 I must sentence you in accordance with the sentencing regime

applicable today, not at the date of the offence. But I am limited to the
maximum sentence available at the time of the offence.

1.5 I must assess the seriousness of the offence and must be guided as to
that by the current guideline which offers assistance to me in the
assessment of harm and culpability, as well as giving broad ranges into
which sentences should appropriately fall.

1.6 I must consider the relevance of the passage of time carefully and
decide whether that is an aggravating, mitigating or neutral factor.
There may be cases where a lack of offending in the meantime, coupled
with evidence of positive good character, might offer some mitigation.
Yours is not such a case. You have in fact committed offences since
those before me today – your convictions of 1998 for downloading
indecent images of children. Further I can find no real evidence that
you have done anything in the intervening 40 or so years to atone for
these crimes. I shall say a little more about this later. I do, however,
accept that this is not a case where the sentence falls to be increased by
reason of the passage of time, as might be appropriate where, for
 example, an offender has put his victim in fear of the consequences of
reporting what happened to her.

2. Applying the Guideline

2.1 Where it is necessary to do so, I must consider how the offences you
committed would be characterised under modern legislation and
modern guidelines.

2.2 As to Count 1, given that the victim was 8 years old and you were in a
position of trust towards her, the appropriate starting point under the
current guidelines would have been 13 years for a full offence of rape
but somewhat less given that this was an attempt at rape. There are
aspects of this offence (and all the other offences you committed) which
make them particularly serious, justifying an increase from the starting
point in each case. The maximum sentence available to me on Count 1,
however, is one of 7 years imprisonment; that was the decision of
Parliament in 1956 when the relevant legislation was passed.

2.3 As to Counts 3 and 4, involving digital penetration of the victim’s

vagina and an act of oral sex upon her, the modern offence would have
been assault of a child under 13 by penetration. This also involved a
breach of trust. Under the modern guideline, the appropriate starting
point would have been 6 years, against a modern maximum of life
imprisonment. The maximum sentence, however, for this offence in
1977 and therefore the maximum sentence available to me today is one
of 5 years imprisonment.

2.4 Count 6 is in a different category. This involved full sexual intercourse

with a girl of 12. Under the modern law, this would have amounted to
an offence of rape of a child under 13. Given the breach of trust
involved in this offence and the fact that the incident lasted for an
entire night, the starting point would have been 13 years. The
maximum sentence for the historic and modern offences is the same,
life imprisonment. The prosecution and the defence are both agreed
that the sentencing principles which apply in this case do not permit me
to pass a life sentence.

2.5 Counts 9 and 10, charged as indecent assaults, have as their modern
equivalent the offences of sexual activity with a child. Here again there
was breach of trust as well as a significant disparity in age. The
maximum sentence available to me for this conduct is 2 years. This is a
sufficient penalty, even under the modern guidelines.

3. The harm caused by these offences

3.1 The assessment of the harm caused by sexual offending is not easy in
the immediate, or near immediate, aftermath of it. But where the
offending took place many years ago, it is a great deal easier.
3.2 I have read the impact statements of all three victims. It is clear that in
their different ways they were all profoundly affected by your abuse of
them. You did all of them real and lasting damage. And you did so for
no other reason than to obtain sexual gratification for yourself of a
wholly improper kind

4. Totality

4.1 Since these offences were committed against different victims on

different occasions, there can be no doubt but the sentences for each
group of offences should be consecutive.

4.2 I recognise, however, that I must take care to ensure that the overall
sentence you must serve is just and proportionate.

4.3 Accordingly, as I hope will be understood by those who were your

victims and by the wider public it is not the individual sentences that
ultimately matter. What matters is the total overall sentence, designed
to reflect the totality of all of your offending.

5. Count 1

5.1 This was on any view a truly appalling offence. An 8 year old child, a
friend of your daughter, was an overnight guest in your home. You went
to the room in which these two little girls were sleeping together in a
double bed and you made a determined, although ultimately
unsuccessful, attempt to rape her. You did so in the presence, sight and
hearing of your own daughter. You caused that child deep harm which
has persisted throughout her life. It is difficult to overstate the
depravity of this dreadful behaviour.

6. Counts 3, 4 and 6

6.1 The 12 year old victim came with her mother to one of your concerts.
You invited them both to your hotel and created a situation in which
her mother was taken out of your suite of rooms to another place,
leaving you with this sexually inexperienced child. All of this happened
because and only because of your fame. You kept her in your room all
night. You penetrated her vagina with your finger and performed oral
sex on her. You had full sexual intercourse with her. She was 12. You
were in your 30’s. She also has been greatly damaged by this. You gave
no thought to the harm you were doing her. Your only thought was for
yourself.

7. Counts 9 and 10

7.1 The 13 year old victim of these offences visited your dressing room after
a performance. She was left alone with you for a few minutes. You put
 her on your lap, you kissed her in a manner that was sexual and
touched her vagina, albeit over her clothing. She was an extremely
vulnerable child for reasons of which I accept you knew nothing. But
I’m quite sure that even if you had known it would have made no
difference to you. Whether you knew of her vulnerability or not, your
abuse of her caused her particular harm.

8. The mitigation

8.1 It is urged on me that I should recognise and give credit for the fact that
when you committed the present offences, you were then of good
character. Whilst I recognise the fact, it cannot in the circumstances of
this case carry any or any significant weight.

8.2 I acknowledge that you are no longer young – you are soon to reach the
age of 71. As your counsel recognises, this cuts both ways. You have had
the benefit of living for nearly 40 years unconvicted of these offences. It
cannot carry any weight.

8.3 I note that in 2011 you sought out professional help to understand your
sexual attitudes and behaviour. After two or three months of treatment,
you were re-assessed and found to have benefitted from it and to
present a lower risk.

8.4 Thereafter, you were permitted to travel abroad. You were now able to
present yourself as having what is described as a “treated profile”.

8.5 I am in no position to decide what your true motivation was in seeking

this treatment, whether it was to come to terms with your past and to
change your attitudes and behaviour or it was to persuade the
authorities to allow you to travel abroad.

8.6 But one thing is certain and important in the context of this sentencing
exercise. Whatever changes may have been effected in you by this
treatment, they did not include any admission at all on your part of the
wrong that you had done, in particular of the offences of which you now
stand convicted.

8.7 That is why I said earlier in these remarks that I find no evidence of
atonement on your part.

8.8 As to the other matters of mitigation advanced on your behalf, I have

given them such weight as I can.

9. The sentences

9.1 The offence of attempted rape was so serious as to justify under the old
sentencing regime the maximum available sentence. It hardly needs
stating that under the modern regime, 7 years would be a lenient
 sentence. But it is all that is available to me. That is the sentence which
I pass on Count 1.

9.2 On Counts 3 and 4, the sentences are 4 years imprisonment. On Count

6 the sentence is one of 8 years imprisonment. In passing that sentence,
I have kept in mind the principle of totality. These sentences will run
concurrently with each other but consecutively to the sentence on
Count 1.

9.3 On Counts 9 and 10, the sentences are 12 months concurrently on each
count but consecutive to the other sentences.

9.4 The total sentence is, therefore, one of 16 years imprisonment.

-ENDS-