Pervert who repeatedly sexually abused boy fails in appeal

Philip Boardman was jailed for four years in April for his shocking actions towards a child over four years in the early 1990s.

The 45-year-old, of Winstanley Close in Hood Manor, committed the offences while living in the St Helens area when he was aged 14.

He denied four counts of indecent assault but was found guilty following a trial and was appearing at Liverpool Crown Court for sentencing.

Boardman chose to appeal the sentence, with the case being heard by Lord Justice William Davis at the Court of Appeal criminal division, held at the Royal Courts of Justice on Wednesday, October 5.

Liverpool Crown Court previously heard how the appellant repeatedly molested the victim and forced him to touch him indecently.

Had they occurred today, the court heard how two of the counts would now be classed as rape.

Geoffrey Lowe, prosecuting at the time, read a victim impact statement from the boy in which he described suffering from insomnia, anxiety and depression.

“My depression causes me to have no interest in activities and I lack any motivation to do anything on most days,” the victim said.

“My depression makes me feel hopeless and empty and angry a lot of the time. I also have terrible self image and have no self importance.

Boardman was jailed at Liverpool Crown Court

“What happened in my youth destroyed my mental health and my mental health has been a constant obstacle to everything else in my life.

“I have no happy time to get back to. I have no future to focus on. I have never been unafraid or felt safe.

“I have never been happy. I have never had a good opinion of the world or the people in it. I trust no one and never relax or let my guard down. That is what it did to me.”

The court heard that Boardman, a father of two, had no previous convictions.

Passing sentence, judge David Swinnerton said: “You have a good work history as a healthcare assistant in hospitals, an ambulance technician, and more recently for a medical company transporting confidential items including specimens.

“Your wife describes you as a caring, fun loving and devoted dad, and a very caring husband. Your parents-in-law speak highly of you.

“But that happy and productive adult life hid a dark secret.”

Judge Swinnerton explained that at the time of Boardman's offences in 1994, the maximum sentence as a 17-year-old, he could have received would have been 12 months detention.

The judge said that the culpability of the repeated abuse and the severe psychological harm inflicted would not be adequately reflected by a sentence limited to 12 months.

“I agree that the passage of time does not imbue a defendant with any greater culpability or moral responsibility than he had at the time of the offence, but our understanding of harm and culpability in sexual offences has changed since 1994,” he continued.

The appeal application was heard at the Royal Courts of Justice. Picture: Google Maps

“In my judgement, this is one of those cases where it is appropriate to go beyond the maximum that could have been imposed when you were 17, and in the interests of justice to do so.”

He added: “You have not accepted that you have done anything wrong and have shown no remorse.”

Judge Swinnerton said if Boardman was an adult committing the offences now, then he would have jailed him for around 16 years.

He sentenced the tearful defendant to four years in prison and added that he would have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

The appeal hearing heard how the judge ‘properly identified’ the appropriate starting point for each of the offences.

“For us to interfere with the judge's sentence in this case, we would have to be persuaded that the conclusion reached by him was not one reasonably open to him,” Lord Justice William Davis said.

“Mr Swift’s (Boardman’s representative in court) submission, put simply, is that we should reach that conclusion.

“This submission could only succeed if we were sure that the judge plainly had fallen into error. We are quite satisfied that we cannot reach this conclusion. Indeed, we are satisfied that he did not fall into error.

“His sentencing remarks reveal a close and careful analysis of all relevant matters. It cannot be said that his judgment displayed any clear error in approach, as required by the guideline or the authorities.”

The court therefore refused the appeal application.