Four sent to jail for ‘sordid’ sexual acts on woman

Press, 17 May 1986, Page 5

Four sent to jail for ‘sordid’ sexual acts on woman

Four of the Devil’s Henchmen’s gang who were involved in a series of "sordid” sexual acts on a young woman, which included rape, indecent assault with a carrot, and oral sex, were jailed for terms of up to five years by Mr Justice Holland in the High Court yesterday. The victim had been at

the gang headquarters some three weeks before, when she had been subjected to sexual indecencies involving a dog and a beer bottle, but it was said that she had gone back because of her infatuation with one of the gang. Barry George Ramage, aged 22, a storeman, was jailed for five years on charges of rape and indecent assault.

Mark Andrew Sutherland, aged 29, a mechanic, was also jailed for five years for rape. Three years jail was imposed on Brian North Wilson, aged 29, a driver, on two charges of indecent assault, and on Wayne Allan Pearson, aged 25, for indecent assault.

Pearson was represented at the trial by Mr David Fitzgibbon, who is in Australia at present, so submissions on Pearson’s behalf were made by Mr Ernst Bedo.

For Ramage, Mr Mervyn Glue said that the testimonials spoke well of his client’s character and ability as a worker. Ramage had suffered extensive and painful injuries in two hit-and-run accidents. He was articulate and intelligent. To his credit, Ramage realistically appreciated that he was going to be sentenced to imprisonment. He had served only one short term previously for driving with excess alcohol and while disqualified. On his release he planned to marry his girlfriend who was standing by him. Mr Tony Garrett, for Wilson, said that Wilson had a peripheral association with the Devil’s Henchmen going back 10 years. During and since his trial counsel had noticed a physical and mental downward spiral in his client.

Wilson denied any involvement in the arrangements for the episode. He had no previous convictions of a similar nature. Counsel asked that he be distinguished from his three co-offenders. For Pearson, Mr Bedo said that his client was found guilty on one charge of indecent assault, which lasted only a short time, and there were no other aggravating factors. Counsel submitted that a nine months jail term would be an appropriate penalty. Mr Bedo, who also appeared for Sutherland, said that his client had previous convictions for serious offences, including assault and manslaughter, but none for sexual offences. They arose because of his association with the Devil’s Henchmen. His Honour said that Sutherland was treated leniently when he sentenced him on the manslaughter charge, which would not have happened had he not been one of the Devil’s Henchmen, yet as soon as he was released from prison he went back to the gang. He regarded that association as a particularly evil one. Mr Bedo said Sutherland was dismayed at the jury's verdict in the light of Pearson’s acquittal on

two charges of rape. He was upset because he said that he had steadfastly told the truth, yet the jury found him guilty. He frankly admitted having intercourse with the young woman. There was no violence on Sutherland’s part and he had not instigated the incident. What made the incident most unusual was that three weeks before, the girl had been at the gang headquarters when she was subjected to a number of sexual indignities, some of which involved a dog and a beer bottle. After meeting the gang in the Yaldhurst Hotel, she went back with them to their headquarters.

On her own volition she went back to a place, where there were 6ft gates and barbed wire, where she had earlier been subjected to gross indecencies, Mr Bedo said. For the Crown Mr Graham Panckhurst said that the Court-of-Appeal had made clear that rape was to be met with severe penalties, and that was required in this case. This was gang rape with violence. The woman was dragged from the car to a corner of the section and was subjected to various sexual indignities.

Mr Justice Holland said that he agreed with the jury’s verdicts. All four accused subjected the poor helpless, misguided woman to the most “sordid and horrible behaviour.” As she was about to leave the gang headquarters she was dragged from the car by Ramage. Her girlfriend was screaming as she . was forcibly taken away.

The unfortunate woman was raped, and forced to perform Oral sexual acts, and she was sodomised and raped by a person who had not been identified.

Wilson got a carrot and used this to perform an indecent assault on her when it was forced into her vagina — behaviour that could be described as animal-like, but that would be doing a great disservice to animals. How men of intelligence and ability could behave in that way was quite inconceivable, his Honour said. He was particularly troubled by Sutherland’s participation as he had been convicted of manslaughter arising from a gang confrontation in which firearms were used.

Sutherland had been among those of the gang who left the headquarters to extract retribution in gang warfare, and as a result a man was killed, but it was not able to be ascertained who had fired the shot.

At the time, he had commented that what had concerned him was that members of the gang appeared to be persons of ability who could even act as leaders, but they considered themselves above the law, and were indifferent to community standards arid what the public thought of them. The present behaviour reflecfjed that

Having received a rela-tively-lenient sentence for manslaughter, Sutherland on his release from prison had defiantly gone back to the gang. Not everyone responsible for the dreadful behaviour on this night was before the Court. But the fact that some had “got away with it” would not influence sentencing. He believed that deterrence was an important part of punishment. “I accept that not one of you acting alone would have behaved in the way that you did. Your actions arose from your membership of the Devil’s Henchmen gang,” said his Honour.

Sadly, multiple rape and indecencies on women had become relatively common, and the Court had to have regard to the view of society on such criminal behaviour. Sentences had to be imposed that would make clear to others that the Courts would not tolerate such behaviour. All four denied the charges, and he and the jury - believed that they had brazenly lied during their trial. There was little to be said in their favour.

He was troubled by the fact that only a few weeks before these offences the woman had been at the gang headquarters, and had been subjected to gross indecencies, yet she had gone back there because of absurd infatuation with Wilson. Because of that, a lesser sentence would be imposed than if they had dragged an innocent woman from the streets. He would distinguish Sutherland’s rape from those of the others.

Having seen the victim for a day in the witness box, and observed her friend giving evidence, he had not the slightest doubt that the hapless victim had been terrified beyond measure by the conduct of the accused, said Mr Justice Holland.