An Isle of Wight man has been jailed for rape and indecency with a child after being found guilty of non-recent sexual abuse dating back to the 70s and 80s.
Graham Harrison, 56, of Ryde, was sentenced on Friday following a 2-week trial at Wood Green Court in August.
Harrison had pleaded not guilty to 3 counts of rape and 2 counts of indecency with a child but was found guilty after a unanimous verdict by the jury.
He was sentenced to 6 years in prison.
The court heard Harrison was aged between 14 and 17-years-old when he committed the offences. The crimes took place in north London between 1979 and 1983 and started when the girl was just 7-years-old. It was during time when the 2 were left alone that Harrison would make the little girl touch him sexually and also rape her.
The victim came forward to police in 2017, more than 35 years after the initial offences, and an investigation was launched.
Detective Constable Adam Downs, from the Metropolitan Police’s Serious Sexual Offences Team, has said:
“Rape and other serious sexual offences are devastating crimes that can have a lasting impact on victims, their families and communities.
Article continues below this advertisement “The sentence is a reminder that historic sexual abuse will always be taken seriously. It is never too late to report these types of offences. I would like to thank the victim for her strength and perseverance”.
But, his age, at the time, is classed as a “child”. So…., something seems a little odd here. What he did was wrong, obviously, not saying anything different, but how come it’s different for some committing these offences, when some are protected by being exposed because of their age? Presumably, hopefully, he’s done nothing like this since?
I fully understand and agree with most of what you say, however he was over the age of criminal responsibility even when he first started abusing the child, the devastating effect on her remained and has been believed. Perhaps she may now have some closure at last.
Thank you
You take care
it indicates 14 to 17 – if the offences took place after he had become 16 to 17 then this will be why. Not deemed a child after 16.
Probably because he was 17 at the time of one of the attacks. Read the story!
I did read the story, which is what made me ask the question, because there are so many times we hear about someone committing some serious crime at 17 years old and it says cannot be named for legal reasons. I don’t even agree with someone being called a child at that age but loads do and will argue vociferously about it. But it looks like they make exceptions in certain cases. So nothing is ever straightforward which is what leads to confusion. Why do so many offenders not get named because they are under the age of 18 when they commit the offence but others do? Who decides? And what is the criteria?
I don’t know the answer Concerned, I agree that there should be some uniformity in these decisions. Sadly, there does’nt seem to be. Take care, us normal-thinking folk seem to be ignored when it comes to common sense & decency xx
Thank you
“Girl”?? Sorry but you seem a bit demented.
The Girl is the victim i presume, so be careful with hurtful comments!
17 years old
The passage of time does not protect sexual offenders. I bet there are dozens of them out there sweating, waiting for the knock on the door. Well done IOW Police. Great work. I hope his victim ( or victims ) begins to heal.
This victim was a child of 7 and the perpetrator was at least twice her age. In what sense should she have been able to withstand him? It will have nade no difference to her that he was a teenager or aged 60. The law is rightly there to protect children from teenagers too. A small child raped by ANYONE is traumatised and deserves redress. An adult’s view, (yours), will not have been hers.