Plan B Forum

Posted: **Tue Dec 09, 2014 8:27 pm**

A child rapist has been released after a judge said it would be "unlawful" to keep him locked up.

Jeffrey Charles Goodwyn, 48, was given an indeterminate sentence in 2012 for indecently assaulting a seven-year-old girl eight or more years earlier.

He already had a previous conviction for raping a nine-year-old child.

Mr Justice Coulson said at the Court of Appeal that an open-ended sentence could only be passed for offences after April 2005.

"Despite the danger to the public which this applicant clearly represents, we are in no doubt that... The IPP (imprisonment for public protection) was unlawful," he said.

The court heard Goodwyn was given an indeterminate sentence at Cardiff Crown Court in 2012 after admitting offences against a seven year old girl and being considered "a very dangerous offender indeed" by the judge.

Such sentences allow the authorities to keep the most dangerous criminals locked up indefinitely until they have proved they are safe.

But Goodwyn went to the Court of Appeal about the sentence.

At the hearing on Tuesday, the judge heard that while in prison Goodwyn refused to transfer to open conditions and the Parole Board described his conduct as unsatisfactory after he threatened staff and was punished for fighting.

And Goodwyn's own lawyers said he had made "no progress whatsoever" in prison.

He had also refused to discuss his sexual offending, the court heard.

Mr Justice Coulson said: "This applicant remains a very dangerous man.

"Because of his failure to engage with the relevant assistance available to him in prison, he has not begun to address his offending."

But he said the legal problems surrounding the IPP sentence meant he had no choice but to quash the term.

He imposed a three-year custodial sentence on Goodwyn, which he has already served, followed by five years on licence.

The judge had held back his decision for a fortnight while Goodwyn's parole arrangements, including hostel accommodation, were put in place.

Responding to the ruling NSPCC Wales head of service Des Mannion said: "It is extremely frightening that a child rapist described as 'very dangerous' and unrepentant has been released back in to the community due to what seems like a legal technicality surrounding the timing of the offence."

Indeterminate prison sentences
An indeterminate prison sentence is where the court sets the minimum term of imprisonment an offender must serve before becoming eligible to be considered for release by the Parole Board. There are two types of indeterminate sentence: Imprisonment for life and Imprisonment for public protection.

A sentence of imprisonment for public protection may be imposed where:

The offender is convicted of a serious sexual or violent offence which is punishable by imprisonment for life or a determinate period of 10 years or more
In the court's opinion the offender poses a significant risk to the public of serious harm by the commission of further specified offences
The offence is punishable with life imprisonment and the court is satisfied that the seriousness of the offence justifies such a sentence
The offender has a previous conviction for an offence listed in schedule 15A to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 or the current offence warrants a notional minimum term of at least two years
Source: Sentencing Council

Posted: **Tue Dec 09, 2014 9:40 pm**

indecently assaulting a seven-year-old girl eight or more years earlier.

He already had a previous conviction for raping a nine-year-old child.

I propose a one day sentence...

To be served in a wood chipper...

And for the judge:

followed by:

Posted: **Tue Dec 09, 2014 10:45 pm**

Don't blame the judge Jim; he didn't write the law. apparently, for offenses prior to 2005, indeterminate/indefinite sentences were not permitted, regardless of what the offense was. If the judge had upheld the sentence, it would just have been overturned on appeal.

Perhaps he could be civilly committed as a danger to society?

Posted: **Tue Dec 09, 2014 10:46 pm**

Or set on fire.

Posted: **Tue Dec 09, 2014 11:18 pm**

apparently, for offenses prior to 2005, indeterminate/indefinite sentences were not permitted,

So he had no choice other than to do this?:

He imposed a three-year custodial sentence on Goodwyn, which he has already served, followed by five years on licence.

How about imposing a life sentence? Or a 25 year sentence? Or at least some sentence that would have continued to keep this unrepentant piece of filth behind bars while another way of keeping him behind bars was figured out?

This is a twice convicted child molester with no remorse...

Absolutely inexcusable that he should be let back out on the streets...

ETA:

The judge had held back his decision for a fortnight while Goodwyn's parole arrangements, including hostel accommodation, were put in place.

I hope the address and the scumbag's picture both go viral on the internet...and get plastered on telephone polls all over that part of the UK...

ETA II:

I'm afraid to ask what sentence he got for the first child rape...

Posted: **Wed Dec 10, 2014 4:06 am**

You should look up the relevant law before making such scathing pronouncements, LJ - it's very possible that the 25 years you suggest isn't allowed by law, either:

But he said the legal problems surrounding the IPP sentence meant he had no choice but to quash the term.

I'd want to see the applicable penalty statute before offering an opinion; newspapers are notorious for putting the most salacious facts before the public, without including the facts that are pivotal in making sense of the story.

Posted: **Wed Dec 10, 2014 6:22 am**

That report is from the BBC.

Posted: **Wed Dec 10, 2014 6:37 am**

Yes, but it's still incomplete. It doesn't provide even a basic reference to the statute or sentencing provision that sets the minimum and maximum allowable terms of sentence for this individual's offense, which has bearing on the ultimate sentence beyond the fact that an indeterminate sentence is prohibited.

BBC or no, it's still an 'if it bleeds, it leads' attention grabbing story that lacks pivotal information.

I like NPR and PBS, but it doesn't mean they don't occasionally drop the ball on such stories as well. Fox, on the other hand, does it every single time.

Posted: **Wed Dec 10, 2014 6:38 am**

Surely, at the very least, the judge was not required to give him five years probation...

He could have kept him banged up while an ex post facto law was passed (which I believe is permissible in the UK) to roll back the date for the new law's effectiveness so that the scumbag would be covered.

That looks like the solution to me.

Posted: **Wed Dec 10, 2014 6:54 am**

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sent ... _under_13/

S5. Rape of child under 13

Date Updated: January 2012

Title: Sexual offences

Offence: Rape of Child under 13

Legislation: Sexual Offences Act 2003 S5

Commencement Date: 01/05/2004

Mode of Trial: Indictable only

Statutory Limitations & Maximum Penalty: Life imprisonment

Let's assume this was a single instance:

Type/nature of activity: Single offence of rape by single offender

Starting points: 10 years custody if the victim is under 13
Sentencing ranges: 8 - 13 years custody

What it looks like this judge did was convert the indeterminate sentence to the lowest one allowable, eight years, (despite a prior conviction for raping another nine year old) and then he only required scumbag to serve three years of that...

I repeat:

Posted: **Wed Dec 10, 2014 4:01 pm**

I say torture the bastard. with the emphasis on "I", meaning ME, oldr_n_wsr
If the CIA won't do it in MY name, I'll do it myself. <===== aka oldr_n_wsr

Posted: **Wed Dec 10, 2014 8:48 pm**

Jim--you looked up the rape statute and the article (despite its salacious headline) said he was convicted of "indecent assault" which may be quite different from rape. His previous conviction is said to be for rape, but given the way the article uses that word, who knows? that's the problem when we don't have all the information before us.

Posted: **Wed Dec 10, 2014 9:16 pm**

Anyone who rapes a 9 year old should get no second chance, let alone the crap wrist slap this vermin got.

Posted: **Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:15 am**

Gob wrote:Anyone who rapes a 9 year old should get no second chance, let alone the crap wrist slap this vermin got.

That's an excellent point...

What the hell was this scumbag doing out on the street after that one?

ETA:

I have to agree with the general point that others have made that there are a lot of missing pieces from this story...

In addition to the question about when he committed the first rape and why he was out after that, the story should have included information about what options the judge had in terms of re-sentencing from the "indeterminate" sentence...

I repeat that I find it very difficult to believe that those standards required that he give the scumbag five years probation on his sentence...

Plan B Forum

Unlawful to jail a child rapist

Unlawful to jail a child rapist

Re: Unlawful to jail a child rapist

Re: Unlawful to jail a child rapist

Re: Unlawful to jail a child rapist

Re: Unlawful to jail a child rapist

Re: Unlawful to jail a child rapist

Re: Unlawful to jail a child rapist

Re: Unlawful to jail a child rapist

Re: Unlawful to jail a child rapist

Re: Unlawful to jail a child rapist

Re: Unlawful to jail a child rapist

Re: Unlawful to jail a rapist

Re: Unlawful to jail a child rapist

Re: Unlawful to jail a child rapist