No release for bingo hall sex perv
A BINGO hall ticket seller who sexually abused a little girl at his place of work has failed to persuade top judges to overturn his convictions or cut his lengthy jail sentence.
David Lee, 63, of Caistor Park Road, Stratford, subjected the girl to abuse when he worked at the Rex Bingo Hall in Stratford during the 1970’s.
The girl, who was first molested when she was just seven, kept what had happened to her a secret until almost 40 years later, when Lee was eventually arrested.
He denied the allegations, but was convicted of four counts of indecent assault at Inner London Crown Court on October 14 last year and jailed for five and a half years.
He asked Lord Justice Gross, Mr Justice Ramsey and Mr Justice MacDuff, sitting at London’s Criminal Appeal Court, to overturn those convictions or alternatively reduce his sentence.
Lee’s lawyers argued that the trial judge had “erred in law” in not halting the trial because of the passage of 38 years between the alleged offences and the prosecution being brought to court.
That delay, it was submitted, meant that a fair trial was impossible. It was also argued that the victim’s memory of the offences could not be relied on in evidence at that remove of time.
- 1 60 firefighters deal with Plaistow tower block fire
- 2 Revealed: Cause of Plaistow tower block fire which left 5 men in hospital
- 3 Revealed: Cause of terraced houses blaze in East Ham
- 4 Bow Lock murder defendants blame each other for fatal attack
- 5 Moncur 'overwhelmed' to join Leyton Orient
- 6 East Ham fire: Terraced houses damaged by blaze as woman treated at scene
- 7 Fares Maatou was 'murdered with stolen sword', court hears
- 8 Truck towing stolen Rolls Royce SUV crashes before dramatic foot chase
- 9 Series of failures sees Met Police placed under special measures
- 10 Moosakhan Nasiri: Man charged with Plashet Park murder
But, dismissing the application for permission to appeal against conviction, Mr Justice MacDuff said: “We do not consider it is an arguable ground that there was an error of law by the judge in deciding whether to stay proceedings.
“The judge applied the right protocols and came to his decision having considered all the evidence. We refuse this application for permission to appeal against conviction,” the judge concluded.