Wednesday, September 26, 2012
THE families of a St Neots paedophile’s victims say they haven’t got justice, after Julian Whiting escaped a jail term for three indecency charges.
The mothers of the two girls expressed outrage with the decision to send Whiting, of Langwood Close, Eaton Ford, on a sexual offenders’ course, which meant that he could not be sent to prison.
The family of Whiting’s second victim told The Hunts Post on Friday that they were appalled at the sentence and said “it didn’t feel like justice”.
Judge Patrick Maloney, sitting at Peterborough Crown Court, heard that Whiting entered a Facebook chat with one victim in October last year, telling the 13-year-old she was pretty and had a nice body. He told her that he wished he could kiss her.
He also told her that he would like to feel her hands on his body and asked her if she had had sex.
His victim said what he was doing was wrong, to which he replied: “I know it is wrong but I can’t help it.”
Greg Perrins, prosecuting, said: “It comes to an end because his victim did the right thing and told him that it was wrong and ended the conversation.”
The girl told a friend and then her mother, who informed police.
After Whiting’s arrest, another victim came forward to report offences between 2002 and 2003, when she was around eight or nine years old. She told police the 50-year-old, who was a family friend, sexually assaulted her while giving her a piggy back down a flight of stairs.
A month later, the victim was in a bathroom at Whiting’s house, when he entered, exposed himself and asked her to touch him.
Mr Perrins said: “She hid in a shower cubicle and told him no and to get out, which he did. When she came down from the bathroom, she describes Whiting as acting as if nothing had happened.”
John Kirkpatrick said in mitigation for his client on Friday (September 21): “Mr Whiting is thoroughly disgraced by what he has done and has no excuses for his behaviour.
“It is quite obvious that he needs intervention to make sure he never does this again and the public is protected.”
In March, Whiting admitted inciting a child to engage in sexual activity and in August he admitted gross indecency with a female under 16 years old and indecent assault on a female under 14.
Judge Patrick Moloney sentenced Whiting to a three-year community order, three years of supervision, and ordered him to go on a three-year sexual offenders treatment programme.
The mother of Whiting’s first victim told The Hunts Post: “It wouldn’t have come about if the other girl didn’t come forward. She is incredibly brave and so is my daughter who has kept this secret for 10 years.
“We were outraged at the sentence - we were expecting a jail term. I don’t know how, at the end of the day, that can be punishment for what he did to my child.
“On the way home, my girl asked me how she was being protected by the ruling as she is now older than 18 but there isn’t anything. And what happens if she sees him on the street? I don’t know what we would do.”
Judge Moloney said: “Whatever [Whiting’s] motives for the sexual conversation with a 13-year-old, nobody could look at that without a sense of disgust. More importantly the image of you taking advantage of the eight-year-old girl is a disgusting picture.
“Listening to the evidence, anybody’s first instinct would be that man must be punished and must go to prison, which is inhospitable to men with that kind of offence.
“As disgraceful as your offences were, and as stark as their ordeal was, the sentencing guidelines state that you would be looking at a two-year jail term, that you will probably be out in around a year. This would mean you would come out aged 51 and likely to do it again.
“By making you go on a three-year sexual offenders course you will no longer be a threat to young girls in the future.
“Unfortunately, the law does not allow me to make you do both and, with a heavy heart and knowing the families will not regard it as justice, I will make you go on the course in the hope that will change you to prevent other girls ever suffering again.”
Whiting was banned from seeing his son or daughter without their mother’s or the family court’s permission. He was also banned from contact with any child under 16 and from using any means to children under 18. including text, Facebook and Twitter.