Award of 50 pounds to child victim of sex assault challenged

A JUDGE'S decision to award a six-year-old victim of indecent assault pounds 50 compensation and put her attacker on probation was referred to the Attorney General last night.

The Crown Prosecution Service decided to refer the case to be considered for appeal against sentence following vehement protests by the girl's family, MPs and children's charities. Before the case papers could be sent, the Attorney General had requested them.

Judge John Whitley placed Terence Hadenham, 43, on probation for three years for gross indecency and indecent assault against the girl, now eight. Hadenham had denied indecently touching his victim and forcing her to touch his private parts.

The judge also ordered Hadenham to pay pounds 5 a week to his victim, as a 'reward' for the trauma of legal action. The girl, said to be devastated by the ordeal, gave evidence via a video link.

Judge Whitley told Portsmouth Crown Court Haden ham would be spared prison after hearing he would be ridiculed by inmates because he suffered stunted growth and had a glass eye. He took the 'exceptional' course after being told Hadenham had a hearing defect that made it difficult for him to form relationships with women.

The judge added that gross indecency was no longer considered the worst sort of sexual offence and it was not in the girl's interests to know she had been responsible for Hadenham going to prison.

The girl's mother later described the ruling as a 'disgusting insult'. She said she wanted to throw the money back into the molester's face.

'How am I going to explain this to my daughter? She will not be able to understand why Hadenham has not been locked away for this. We thought he would get at least a year in prison, that was the whole point in us going through all this - to protect other little girls.

'I don't want his money. Fifty pounds is an insult after all the emotion and distress we have had to suffer for 18 months. What is there to stop him doing it again? These judges have no idea what people go through.'

Maureen O'Hara, of the Children's Legal Centre, said: 'Linking money with a sexual assault has serious implications. This man has committed a criminal offence and broken the law. Whatever personal difficulties he has, there is no justification for sexually abusing children.'

Peter Griffiths, Tory MP for Portsmouth North, demanded an inquiry into the case. 'There has been a complete failure of the judge to realise the seriousness of what happened. Is he suggesting pounds 50 is the going rate for sexual assault on a child? I would have thought this was the worst possible way of dealing with a case of this sort.

'The fact that this man has a glass eye shouldn't allow him to assault children and get away with it - that is completely irrelevant.'

A spokesman for the Crown Prosecution Service said the Home Office added indecent assault to the serious charges whose sentences could be appealed against on the grounds that they were 'unduly lenient' in March.