A day by the seaside (aka Husband's folly)
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2018 12:02 am
My work diary fell very conveniently and I was able to keep today free. Had it been possible, I would have liked to have attended during the trial, but that wasn’t possible.
I didn’t advertise the fact that I was attending as it could tempt unpleasantness, although a number of forum members knew of my plans.
I now live at the opposite end of the country and so I was out of the house just after 4 a.m and returned home at about 10.45 p.m.
I picked JR en route and we arrived at Court spot on 10 a.m. The court building at Hove is poky and it was eerily quiet. There was a cameraman outside from ITV and a reporter. Other reporters congregated and shared the jury box with a number of jurors who had returned for the sentence.
The clerk said that they were expecting a big crowd but “big” turned out to be 7 of us !!
Unfortunately, we got the cheap seats and were unable to see the man in the dock. There were three supporters in attendance for Husband. One was his daughter Sarah. The other two were both women. One was older and we guessed is the second Mrs. J.A Husband, while the other was of an age that she might be a child of the second marriage.
The judge came in at 10.42 and the prosecutor immediately stood up to address her. The judge spent five weeks presiding over the trial and so we did not get a recitation of the evidence, as the judge had heard it all before. So we started with the prosecutor saying that she was not applying for a Sexual Harm Prevention Order as there had been no further offending since the matter he was convicted of and the danger arose when he was teaching, which he would not be again.
The prosecutor then read the victim’s Victim Personal Statement into the court record. Every victim of crime should be asked whether they want to say anything about the effect of the crime upon them. In this case, it largely followed the statement that was posted on here earlier in the week and I do not propose to add to it.
What then followed was a discussion about how the Sentencing Guidelines applied to the facts of the offences during which we were treated to snippets of the evidence:
- Husband groomed the victim over a period of 3 years
- The victim was given strong alcohol by Husband including brandy and calvados
- The school was aware that the victim was vulnerable
- Husband was caught having an affair with another pupil and “encouraged to resign”
- The victim went to the police in 2016 as she was not able to get the school to do anything
- The victim was hospitalised for 13 months in 2016-17
- The victim was subjected to two and a half days cross examination by the briefs for Husband and Dobbie at trial
We discovered that there were five counts of indecent assault and one of rape. Count 1 was indecent assault and related to Husband grinding against the victim in a DIY shop (1). Count 3 was “kissing with tongues”. Count 5 was a specimen count of Husband touching the victim’s upper thigh. The rape took place shortly after the victim’s 16th birthday. At the A level history library, Husband lent against the victim.
Husband discussed the victim with Dobbie and they joked about it in her presence.
Husband managed to get himself appointed the victim’s tutor.
Husband took the victim on trips to Albi and Dorset.
Husband’s own brief said he was an appalling husband to his first wife, but not his second. Character references were produced from work colleagues.
The judge said that Husband cynically waited until the victim was 16 to have sex with her to reduce his own liability.
In sentencing the judge made a number of comments:
- He groomed her for 3 years
- The victim was particularly vulnerable
- He targeted her
- There was a particularly acute breach of trust
- He was devious and determined
- There was a disparity in age
- He showed a complete disregard for the victim
- He selected her as his victim because of her vulnerability
The judge found that Husband caused the victim serious psychological harm.
The offences were aggravated by taking place at the victim’s school where she should have been safe.
The judge said that the rape on its own would have been 13 years 6 months, while the indecent assaults would have been 5 years 6 months which made 19 years in total. The judge then reduced that to 17 years imprisonment for “totality” – where a defendant is sentenced for a number of offences some reduction is made to the overall sentence.
A number of staff were mentioned. The names mean nothing to me – Goulding (who gave evidence for Dobbie) and Walsh. Walsh said he missed the signs. It was said that the victim couldn’t turn to the Flemings and she had given an explanation why not, but we were not told what the explanation was.
As a postscript, the judge decided that the indecent assaults fell into the highest category – category 1A. Curiously, she then decided that the rape fell into category 2A, even though the criteria are the same, It makes a difference of about 5 years imprisonment. I think the judge is wrong in that and I intend to email the Attorney General and ask him to refer the sentence to the Court of Appeal.
I hope this makes some sense.
I didn’t advertise the fact that I was attending as it could tempt unpleasantness, although a number of forum members knew of my plans.
I now live at the opposite end of the country and so I was out of the house just after 4 a.m and returned home at about 10.45 p.m.
I picked JR en route and we arrived at Court spot on 10 a.m. The court building at Hove is poky and it was eerily quiet. There was a cameraman outside from ITV and a reporter. Other reporters congregated and shared the jury box with a number of jurors who had returned for the sentence.
The clerk said that they were expecting a big crowd but “big” turned out to be 7 of us !!
Unfortunately, we got the cheap seats and were unable to see the man in the dock. There were three supporters in attendance for Husband. One was his daughter Sarah. The other two were both women. One was older and we guessed is the second Mrs. J.A Husband, while the other was of an age that she might be a child of the second marriage.
The judge came in at 10.42 and the prosecutor immediately stood up to address her. The judge spent five weeks presiding over the trial and so we did not get a recitation of the evidence, as the judge had heard it all before. So we started with the prosecutor saying that she was not applying for a Sexual Harm Prevention Order as there had been no further offending since the matter he was convicted of and the danger arose when he was teaching, which he would not be again.
The prosecutor then read the victim’s Victim Personal Statement into the court record. Every victim of crime should be asked whether they want to say anything about the effect of the crime upon them. In this case, it largely followed the statement that was posted on here earlier in the week and I do not propose to add to it.
What then followed was a discussion about how the Sentencing Guidelines applied to the facts of the offences during which we were treated to snippets of the evidence:
- Husband groomed the victim over a period of 3 years
- The victim was given strong alcohol by Husband including brandy and calvados
- The school was aware that the victim was vulnerable
- Husband was caught having an affair with another pupil and “encouraged to resign”
- The victim went to the police in 2016 as she was not able to get the school to do anything
- The victim was hospitalised for 13 months in 2016-17
- The victim was subjected to two and a half days cross examination by the briefs for Husband and Dobbie at trial
We discovered that there were five counts of indecent assault and one of rape. Count 1 was indecent assault and related to Husband grinding against the victim in a DIY shop (1). Count 3 was “kissing with tongues”. Count 5 was a specimen count of Husband touching the victim’s upper thigh. The rape took place shortly after the victim’s 16th birthday. At the A level history library, Husband lent against the victim.
Husband discussed the victim with Dobbie and they joked about it in her presence.
Husband managed to get himself appointed the victim’s tutor.
Husband took the victim on trips to Albi and Dorset.
Husband’s own brief said he was an appalling husband to his first wife, but not his second. Character references were produced from work colleagues.
The judge said that Husband cynically waited until the victim was 16 to have sex with her to reduce his own liability.
In sentencing the judge made a number of comments:
- He groomed her for 3 years
- The victim was particularly vulnerable
- He targeted her
- There was a particularly acute breach of trust
- He was devious and determined
- There was a disparity in age
- He showed a complete disregard for the victim
- He selected her as his victim because of her vulnerability
The judge found that Husband caused the victim serious psychological harm.
The offences were aggravated by taking place at the victim’s school where she should have been safe.
The judge said that the rape on its own would have been 13 years 6 months, while the indecent assaults would have been 5 years 6 months which made 19 years in total. The judge then reduced that to 17 years imprisonment for “totality” – where a defendant is sentenced for a number of offences some reduction is made to the overall sentence.
A number of staff were mentioned. The names mean nothing to me – Goulding (who gave evidence for Dobbie) and Walsh. Walsh said he missed the signs. It was said that the victim couldn’t turn to the Flemings and she had given an explanation why not, but we were not told what the explanation was.
As a postscript, the judge decided that the indecent assaults fell into the highest category – category 1A. Curiously, she then decided that the rape fell into category 2A, even though the criteria are the same, It makes a difference of about 5 years imprisonment. I think the judge is wrong in that and I intend to email the Attorney General and ask him to refer the sentence to the Court of Appeal.
I hope this makes some sense.