“Those in positions of trust must be held to the highest moral standards,” said the presiding judge, Lord Chief Justice Malcolm Bishop, in a case involving a former probationary minister and tutor at a church-run boarding school who was found guilty of multiple offences against students under his care.
The judge emphasised that the offender had been entrusted by both the church and the parents of the pupils to ensure their safety and protection.
“What is particularly serious about your case,” the judge stated, “is that you were in a position of trust at the school… entrusted with the wellbeing of children.”
Despite being convicted on the evidence presented during trial, the offender continues to maintain his innocence and has shown no remorse, according to a report from the Probation Office.
The judge noted this lack of accountability as a significant concern in sentencing.
While the prosecution submitted comparable cases to guide the court, the judge stressed that “each case must be decided on its own particular facts,” particularly when the offences involve multiple complainants and persistent conduct over a span of time.
The offender’s previous good character and status as a first-time offender were acknowledged, supported by numerous reference letters from community members. These were the only mitigating factors considered by the court.
The judge also referenced the principles in Mo’unga when considering the possibility of sentence suspension, noting that although the offender did not cooperate with police and expressed no remorse, his prior exemplary character suggested a high prospect of rehabilitation.
The court sentenced the offender to 16 months’ imprisonment, followed by a further 12 months suspended for two years under specified conditions.
In delivering the final orders, Mr Bishop directed that no part of these proceedings that could reveal the identities of the complainants shall be published or broadcast anywhere in the Kingdom, in accordance with Section 119 of the Criminal Offences Act.
“That is the order of the court,” the judge concluded.
