SUPREME COURT Man imprisoned for “outrage’ on girl

Press, Volume CXVI, Issue 34083, 21 February 1976, Page 7

SUPREME COURT Man imprisoned for “outrage’ on girl

“The outrage you committed on this young girl was an abuse of the hospitality of her parents, in whose home you were a guest," Mr Justice Casey said in the Supreme Court yesterday when he gaoled ai man for six months on a charge of indecent assault. The man, Leslie William

.Giles, aged 24, unemployed, ’had been found guilty by a jury on a charge of indecent assault on a girl, aged 11, on July 18, 1975. Mr R. J. Murfitt, for the’ prisoner, said that the. jury had added a recommendation for leniency to its verdict/ and that it showed it consid- i .ered that Giles suffered ’some loss of control because! of alcohol and prescription) drugs, but not automatism. His Honour was entitled to! take into account that Giles had acted with dmininished responsibility. The child had apparently! suffered no permanent harm,! and her parents had assisted; i Giles with his wedding ex-! Ipenses in December, after! ’the offence had been com-! mitted. Giles had been shocked at I what he did, but he had saved her the ordeal of having to give evidence in the Supreme Court by allowing her evidence, which had been taken in the Magistrate's Court, to be read to the jury. This was Giles’s first offence with sexual 'overtones, Mr Murfitt said. : His Honour said that Giles 1 had abused the hospitality of! jthe girl’s parents by in-1 ’decently assaulting their’

. small daughter about mid- ; i night after drinking but not : to an immoderate degree. He . had been caught in the act ’ by the girl’s older sister. i The jury’s recommendation . for leniency was no i doubt prompted by its belief I ,’that Giles’s conduct was ■ prompted by the com- ’ I bination of alcohol and preyscription drugs. Evidence, ijshowed that he had been, .acting strangely both before (land after the offence, but; < that could not excuse the se1 riousness of the offence. He had considered the! ’ submission that Giles should ’ ,|be sentenced to periodic de-! I’tention, but when his record ■’was examined that was out ■-of the question, his Honour ■ said. He nad been sentenced | to periodic detention on four r occasions. to detention 1, centre training, been gaoled . for six months, and been: > fined and had other sen-i , tences imposed, on him. I This was the first time! ■ Giles was before the Court ’ > on a charge of this nature. His record of convictions! I showed a lack of social re-1 | sponsibility. This offence; iicarried a maximum penalty! : ;of 10 years imprisonment. ■ land it bad to be regarded as I ■’serious, said his Honour. j