Paedophile avoids jail because of bad back

A paedophile who abused three young girls more than 40-years ago has been spared jail after telling a judge he had a bad back.

John Chappell, who has a number of previous convictions for child abuse, admitted indecently assaulted the girls in the mid 1970s.

But the 60-year-old was given a suspended sentence after the judge accepted that his back problems would cause him "considerable discomfort" in prison.

Chappell, who was aged 16 or 17 at the time of the offences, indecently touched the girls - two of whom were under 14, and asked them to perform sex acts on him.

But despite being convicted of similar offences just a year later, he had escaped justice for the crimes until now.

Sentencing him at Plymouth Crown Court, Judge Ian Lawrie, said he sentencing ought to be about punishment rather than revenge.

Taking account of Chappell's curvature of the spine, Judge Lawrie said: "This would cause you considerable discomfort in prison.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/12/paedophile-avoids-jail-bad-back/

Whats more interesting is if this man sexually abused young teens when he was a teenager himself, has he never offended since?
Is he a paedophile or was he drawn to younger girls because he was young himself?

That doesnt make his actions any less sickening, but it would be interesting to know.

Telegraph wrote:A paedophile who abused three young girls more than 40-years ago has been spared jail after telling a judge he had a bad back.

Who heard this case. Judge Moore?

Being under 18 at the time of those offences, he wouldn't have been convicted as a paedo' back then, if caught -- being a minor himself -- but under other sexual assault/carnal knowledge laws ???

So for the newspaper to label him as a paedophile, he must have been convicted as such as an adult ???