Transgender woman found with a collection of CSA images of toddlers escapes prison sentence - how?!

[blackgingerlily]

I’ve just read this article and am gobsmacked and horrified that a judge decided not to lock this person up. As if possessing a collection of sadistic toddler sexual abuse videos wasn’t bad enough, this person had previously also imprisoned a woman and sexually assaulted her (and was sent to prison for that in 2018, yet is out already causing more harm to others).

Although there are certainly going to be issues about where this person should be locked up, how tf can anyone look at the list of offences and think it’s ok for such a person to be out and free in our society? What is wrong with our judicial system?

https://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/19837391.colchester-sex-offender-21-sick-child-images/

“A transgender woman who was found in possession of indecent images depicting the abuse of toddlers has been spared an immediate prison sentence.
Registered sex offender Louise Foord, 21, who appeared at Ipswich Crown Court under her birth name Lewis Foord, was found by police to have breached notification requirements last year.

…

The investigation revealed indecent images on both devices.
On the iPad, 39 images of children at the most serious Category A were found, 39 at Category B and 19 at Category C.
Also found on the device were 22 moving images and videos at Category A, eight at Category B and three at Category C.
On the iPhone, 49 images at Category A were found, 43 at Category B and 28 at Category C.
The court was told some of the most serious images had “hallmarks of sadism” and involved the abuse of toddlers.

…

Judge Levett said: “You’ve got several previous convictions for what I count up to be effectively 19 offences, most of which were for violence on an adult who was either supervising you or in a position of authority.”
The court was told Foord was jailed in June 2019 after sexually assaulting and falsely imprisoning a woman.”

[quote nauticant]www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/teenager-locked-up-terrifying-sex-16384529[/quote]
If he had received a sentence, he's a clear danger to women - would he have been put in a women's prison (which may also jave a mother and baby unit)? It doesn't bear thinking about!

Does anyone have any stats on how many biological women that have been sentenced for child sex abuse / images of child see abuse compared to transwomen?

Just to say that people can and do get custodial sentences for viewing CSA images. It may not happen all the time, or even that often but I worked with a guy who got 3 years. I'm not sure how long he actually served, though.

Foord’s suspended sentence runs until June 2022. The reason suspended sentences are meant to act as a deterrent is that breaching them can result in your having to serve some or all of the states prison term. Foord has, by their own admission, committed multiple offences, thus qualifying them not simply for removal to prison, but to serve the full 2 years (well, whatever a 2y sentence becomes atm) there.

Similarly, Foord’s 20-year-long Sexual Harm Prevention Order was breached. The reporting doesn’t make it clear (to me, at least ) if Foord was also prosecuted for this, as Foord should have been. Breaching the SHPO & suspended sentence together (in combination with prolific level offending despite closely controlled environment) should meet threshold for custodial sentence rather than a fine - but even if Foord were to be fined it would be something.

We only ever seem to be told that some white people of the male sex are too vulnerable to be imprisoned. If we’re talking vulnerable nearly 25% of the adult prison population have spent time in care; and nearly 50% of under 21-year-olds in contact with the criminal justice system have spent time in care. There is a continuing failure to identify and avoid prosecuting victims of trafficking and modern slavery. The Bradley Commission’s briefing on “ Black and Minority Ethnic communities, mental health and criminal justice” is from 2013, but the issues it raises persist. Prisons are full of vulnerable people who are struggling massively with the experience. People of the male sex basically getting to opt out of facing the consequences of their - criminal, let’s not forget - actions because, in effect, “I don’t waaannnnaaaaa”, makes an absolute mockery of the justice system.

What sort of link about Cygnet do you want?
It states in OP article that he lives there and information on Cygnet Hospital is freely available online.

Nobody denies the severity of the crime and risk to society but given that he may already be on section then a suspended 22 month jail sentence with rehab and probationary control and 20 years on sex offenders register is obviously what the judge and his medical team felt would be most effective.

The OP asked why no prison sentence - well that's why. Devil is in the detail. Always.

I know nothing about this case, but I used to work somewhere similar to the Cygnet Hospital.

People in them are very significantly unwell and, yes, may be unable to distinguish right from wrong.

They are also not particularly pleasant places to be.

The number of images is, compared with many offenders, very low indeed.

I can see that a prison service would do little more than cut this person off from the very significant therapeutic support and supervision they need. It wouldn't stop future re-offending. It wouldn't allow ongoing mental health detention or, should this individual become safe for it, a managed release.

Long term, that would increase risk.

I agree with those who have said there's probably a great deal of context which isn't in the public domain.

I work in a connected field and it’s rare for anyone to get custodial sentence for CSA images.

This is true. It does happen, but there are lots of things the judges will consider in mitigation when passing sentence, such as a promise to seek treatment.

Agree with Motorina and Bonhex that this person is housed in what is basically a locked ward in a secure hospital under 24 hour supervision. He is presumably detained under the mental health act and will continue to be detained until he is no longer considered a risk to the public. That's not a get out of jail free card, it's essentially an indefinite detention. People can stay in hospitals like this for years. It's pretty grim. Yes, there will be therapeutic support from OT, psychology etc. But essentially his every action will be watched and recorded by his medical team and any progress towards release will be dependent on him not showing violent, aggressive or sexually inappropriate behaviour.

On the other hand, I note that the judge mentioned that “You’ve got several previous convictions for what I count up to be effectively 19 offences, most of which were for violence on an adult who was either supervising you or in a position of authority.” That wording suggests that must of these crimes were committed against support staff / carers at an institution like the Cygnet hospital. It's quite unusual for these kind of assaults to actually lead to a conviction (someone on a mental health ward who assaults a staff member would usually be considered not to have criminal responsibility because of their illness). For there to be 19 convictions like this could suggest some tension between the current medical team who do not wish to be used indefinitely as a holding pen for a dangerously violent person; and the judicial system who see these assaults as a result of mental illness and decline to give a custodial sentence. It's also quite a tricky situation within mental health services. If someone needs to be detained but is repeatedly assaulting staff it suggests that they need a more secure setting. But lots of secure services wouldn't accept someone with just a personality disorder diagnosis - admission criteria would require psychosis for example. So the list of convictions may be a red flag that the service is not coping well and is pushing for a change to this person's care provision. (It doesn't look good for Cygnet at all if someone with a sexual harm prevention order was able to access CSA images under their care! Not saying this is what happened - don't know how long they have been providing care.)

A third thing to consider is that this person is young - 21 years old. It may be that some or most of the previous convictions were for offences committed during childhood. That suggests that this is a young person who may have been in institutional or foster care for a long period of time and who has presumably experienced considerable trauma and abuse during childhood. That's not at all to excuse the crimes they have committed, but just to say that there is nothing good here. The abuse that children in secure care have experienced can be horrific - to the extent that they have no idea what a normal relationship looks like because all they have known is abuse. This is likely to be a miserable situation all round with no good outcome - this person will probably spend most of their life in a secure setting of some kind - prison or hospital.

When I was a very young trainee social worker many years ago I was informed that about half the men on the male admission ward (in those days they were single sex segregated) were there to avoid prison for crimes involving sexual abuse of children. Some may have had mental health problems but it was not apparent. Meanwhile on the women’s ward, many were suffering from the trauma of abuse, severe depression , psychosis and seemed to need the “asylum” when refuges etc did not exist.
I also think it is true that possessing and making or distributing such images rarely leads to a prison sentence, presumably because it is so common. It does seem that as a male , you have to do more and higher tariff crime to be imprisoned, and many offenders know this.

@ArabellaScott

He has a personality disorder.

'the defendant, who had pleaded guilty, was a vulnerable individual who had a moderate to severe personality disorder.'

Personality disorder is not a medical diagnosis. It cant be treated and is not a mental health condition.

Judges seem to find any excuse reasonable in cases like these.

I agree that people do (and should) get custodial sentences for viewing CSA.
A friend works in a Sex offenders unit and she teaches a fair amount of them.

yes, newnames, I was responding to someone who said he had a mental health condition - there's no mention of that, but the report said he had a personality disorder.

@CheeseMmmm

Vv little googling and tried variations on search terms. The court when 19 fair bit.

This recent one vv not much at all. Please link about cygnet and this person?

From your comment:

'Unfortunately possession of this type of image, never gets a custodial. He also plead guilty, which would have given him a reduction and mitigation on his mental health (I mean he is living in a psychiatric hospital).

Do I think it's "right" or "just" no. Can I see why the CJS have made the decisions they have'.

Never ever gets custodial even with this number and the types of crimes.. And the admitted sexual interest in little kids and the starting to make off with on snatched on street, plus the previous false imprisoned + sexual assault... breach probation conditions...

You can see why this judgement?
I thought judge took previous offences into account. Is that not correct, or would you say understandable judge decision?

Also interested on phrasing at end. The right or just bit.

In general I'm not sure what you are trying to get across.

The major concern for me here is public protection. To do with risk he presents.

Everyone has different ideas of what's right (essentially same meaning as just in the way you express). And I don't understand why that choice of words, or why speech marks, unless it's a quote from thread or news items?

Bottom line, thinking bloody hell this person is obviously dangerous is not a value judgement. It's taking in the info and concluding high risk, surely risk needs to be vv closely managed.

Anyway link will clear up, if in secure MH facility then I have different opinion.

Ok so I'll just try and bullet point this.

A quick Google will reveal that cygnet hospital is a secured 24 hour mental health ward. He is directed to live here/detained here. You don't get put in to one of these for a mild/moderate psychiatric disorder.

He has a 22 month suspended sentence. If he breeches he could be recalled, but highly doubt he would enter the prion estate as his needs are being met here. But what could happen is his licence can be extended and extended or even another conviction for failure to adhere to licence conditions.

With regards to public protection, I'd guess a MAPPA 1 case, there will be public protection officers, probation and other professionals involved in managing him, post supervision sentence will occur, now whilst he can't be breached on PSS he is still accountable to probation. He may well also have a mental health order as part of his licence, meaning if he were to breech this then yes a custodial could occur, but again unlikely as he's housed in a secure unit.

In a nutshell, I don't think this man is getting out of his 24hour secured housing for a very long time, its practically an indefinite sentence. He will either be held under probation order or by court order under the mental health act.

Hopefully they now bring in on his SHPO(sexual harm prevention order) that he is not allowed to possess or used smart devices such as phones or tablets/computers. To again safeguard public protection.

Yes personality disorders are thought to be different from eg psychotic illness as the person is generally able to distinguish right from wrong. It seems to vary a lot how much of a mitigating factor it is seen as, but there are a huge amount of prisoners who have this diagnosis.

@Bonhex

What sort of link about Cygnet do you want? It states in OP article that he lives there and information on Cygnet Hospital is freely available online.

Nobody denies the severity of the crime and risk to society but given that he may already be on section then a suspended 22 month jail sentence with rehab and probationary control and 20 years on sex offenders register is obviously what the judge and his medical team felt would be most effective.

The OP asked why no prison sentence - well that's why. Devil is in the detail. Always.

Apologies for missing that in OP link.

The info I wanted was about the one he's in, the facilities and types of patient (different risks they cover). And ideally more about him relating to that. How long, where etc.

I couldn't find anything. Essentially I wanted reassurance that he was being very tightly managed indeed.

With these situations I don't like to assume it's all fine iyswim. Until I have enough info to make me feel sounds ok.

I couldn't find much about this person on Google full stop. Used both names as well.

I also couldn't work out if/where to read the full judgement. Not caught up ignore this bit if has been posted.

On the face of it-

If he lives there then he was able to commit the recent crimes there. That's not encouraging.

With his history of violence, false imprisonment and sexual assault of a woman, making off with a child (sexually motivated) but thankfully changing mind fairly quickly, etc etc.

If not vv carefully managed obvious threat to staff and other patients. V worrying. Hence looking for reassurance.