Glitter ordered to sign sex offenders register

Click to follow
The Independent Online

Paedophile singer Gary Glitter will have to sign the sex offenders register after a judge today agreed to an application for a notification order made by police.

A solicitor for the former Seventies glam rock star had argued that his conviction for abusing two young girls in Vietnam was "a travesty of justice" and the court should give him time to consider opposing it.

But district judge David Simpson, sitting at Uxbridge Magistrates' Court in west London, just hours after Glitter arrived back in Britain, said that the star had "demonstrated his desire to avoid the jurisdiction of this court" and ordered that he sign on as a sex offender within three days. He has 21 days in which to appeal.



Outside court Glitter's solicitor David Corker said the 64-year-old, whose real name is Paul Gadd, was "pleased to be back in the UK".

Glitter did not attend the 10-minute hearing in person after he touched down at Heathrow Airport on a flight from Thailand this morning.

He had been released from jail in Vietnam on Tuesday after serving most of a three-year sentence for sex crimes involving two young girls aged 10 and 11.

Glitter met his solicitor after going through immigration checks at Terminal 3.

He had then been expected to be taken by police to the court at Uxbridge but didn't turn up and left Mr Corker to represent him at the hearing.

Rajeev Shetty, a solicitor representing the Metropolitan Police, told the court that the force were applying for a notification order that would require Glitter to register as a sex offender under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

He said that the conditions that needed to be satisfied were that Glitter had been convicted of a relevant offence in a country outside the UK and that the offence took place after September 1997.

He added that a sentence of three years in prison had the offence been committed in this country would have required him to sign the sex offenders register for life.

Mr Corker told the court that he had only been able to spend an hour with his client this morning and asked for an interim order of six weeks to be served to give him time to prepare his client's answer to the police application.



He told the court: "I will be making a submission to the court that this was a conviction obtained in the most appalling of circumstances.

"My client feels it was an unfair trial and a travesty of justice.

"We need to inquire whether this conviction should be recognised by this court."

Mr Corker added that the system of justice in Vietnam is "far, far below what is acceptable in western European standards".

He said for those reasons the court should grant an interim order to give him an opportunity to prepare an objection.

But District Judge David Simpson rejected Mr Corker's request.

He said the fact of the conviction was not disputed but it was a question of fairness and that the conditions for the notification order had been met.

He said: "Therefore I decline to make an interim order as Mr Gadd has demonstrated his desire to avoid the jurisdiction of this court."



Mr Corker said after the hearing: "Mr Gadd is pleased to be back in this country. The last few days, as you know, he has been travelling around Asia and that time was not wasted. It enabled Mr Gadd and others to put into practice a plan for his proper and safe arrival.

"Mr Gadd is not a well man, he needs medical attention and is also, unsurprisingly, concerned about his safety and these past few days have enabled the Metropolitan Police and I, on his behalf, to put into plan a proper procedure for his protection and his well-being."



He added: "Mr Gadd is pleased to be back for another reason, because there is the possibility that for the first time he can appear before a court of justice.

"He tells me that his trial in Vietnam, a country which has been condemned by virtually every organisation concerned with justice and human rights as being a system of unfair justice and political trials, that his trial in Vietnam was a charade, was a travesty of justice. He never got a fair trial."

Comments