CHRISTOPHER BISHOP'S SHOCKING SEX OFFENSES IN MALMESBURY AND SHERSTON
| Red Rose Database
Sherston Malmesbury Child Sexual Abuser
In September 2014, a disturbing case involving Christopher Bishop, a man from Malmesbury and Sherston, came to light as he was convicted of sexually abusing two young girls aged 12 and 13. Despite the gravity of his actions, Bishop was spared immediate imprisonment and received a suspended sentence, a decision that drew both criticism and reflection on the circumstances of his case.
During the proceedings at Swindon Crown Court, Judge Tim Mousley QC emphasized that while Bishop's offenses might not have involved the most physically severe acts, the exploitation of vulnerable minors and the threats he used to intimidate them marked his conduct as profoundly serious. The judge acknowledged the emotional trauma inflicted upon the victims, noting that such harm was evident and significant.
It was revealed that Bishop, aged 41 at the time, had a prior criminal record, and his previous time in incarceration had shaped his negative view of sex offenders, which he considered to be repulsive. Prosecutor Ian Dixey detailed that Bishop was residing in Sherston when the incidents occurred. The case was further compounded by a recent incident where Bishop groped the backside of a 13-year-old girl, a friend’s daughter. Following this, he sent her messages suggesting he would only give her a lift if she bent over so he could slap her bottom or by sending a photograph of her in a bent-over position. The girl, feeling uncomfortable, confided in her friends, who encouraged her to report the matter to her teachers, leading to police involvement.
Further investigations uncovered that Bishop had also assaulted another girl several years earlier, grabbing her bottom over her clothing. These revelations painted a troubling pattern of predatory behavior. Bishop, who was described as having no fixed address, admitted to two counts of engaging in sexual activity with girls aged 12 or 13, as well as inciting a child to participate in sexual acts.
Defense lawyer Robin Shellard highlighted Bishop’s troubled past, noting that his previous encounters with the criminal justice system had fostered a hostile attitude towards sexual offenses and offenders. Shellard expressed that Bishop was genuinely remorseful for his actions and was unable to explain why he had committed these offenses. Bishop had been employed for the past four years, and his employment status was considered in the court’s decision.
Judge Mousley, after reviewing the pre-sentence report and impact statements, acknowledged the risk Bishop posed but also considered his remorse and employment. He stated, “I am told in the pre-sentence report that it is considered that there is a medium risk of your causing harm to children in the future. However, having read everything in the pre-sentence report and what is in the impact statements and the fact you have shown remorse and the fact you are in employment, I have come to the conclusion that I can suspend that sentence.”
Consequently, Bishop was sentenced to a 12-month jail term, suspended for two years. Additionally, he was ordered to pay a £100 victim surcharge and to register as a sex offender for the next ten years. The court’s decision underscored the seriousness of his crimes while also considering his remorse and efforts to rehabilitate.
Earlier in August 2014, Bishop’s case had already garnered attention when he was granted bail after admitting to sexual offenses involving two young girls over a span of five years. During that hearing, he acknowledged sexual activity with one girl between mid-July and September of the previous year and inciting her to engage in a sexual act on September 8. He also admitted to similar offenses involving another girl from late 2008 to the end of 2010. Bishop’s bail was conditional, and the case was adjourned to September 12, with the judge explicitly stating that bail should not be interpreted as a sign of the case’s final outcome.
Throughout these proceedings, the community in Malmesbury and Sherston was left to grapple with the disturbing revelations about Bishop’s actions, highlighting the ongoing importance of vigilance and justice in protecting vulnerable minors from predatory behavior.
During the proceedings at Swindon Crown Court, Judge Tim Mousley QC emphasized that while Bishop's offenses might not have involved the most physically severe acts, the exploitation of vulnerable minors and the threats he used to intimidate them marked his conduct as profoundly serious. The judge acknowledged the emotional trauma inflicted upon the victims, noting that such harm was evident and significant.
It was revealed that Bishop, aged 41 at the time, had a prior criminal record, and his previous time in incarceration had shaped his negative view of sex offenders, which he considered to be repulsive. Prosecutor Ian Dixey detailed that Bishop was residing in Sherston when the incidents occurred. The case was further compounded by a recent incident where Bishop groped the backside of a 13-year-old girl, a friend’s daughter. Following this, he sent her messages suggesting he would only give her a lift if she bent over so he could slap her bottom or by sending a photograph of her in a bent-over position. The girl, feeling uncomfortable, confided in her friends, who encouraged her to report the matter to her teachers, leading to police involvement.
Further investigations uncovered that Bishop had also assaulted another girl several years earlier, grabbing her bottom over her clothing. These revelations painted a troubling pattern of predatory behavior. Bishop, who was described as having no fixed address, admitted to two counts of engaging in sexual activity with girls aged 12 or 13, as well as inciting a child to participate in sexual acts.
Defense lawyer Robin Shellard highlighted Bishop’s troubled past, noting that his previous encounters with the criminal justice system had fostered a hostile attitude towards sexual offenses and offenders. Shellard expressed that Bishop was genuinely remorseful for his actions and was unable to explain why he had committed these offenses. Bishop had been employed for the past four years, and his employment status was considered in the court’s decision.
Judge Mousley, after reviewing the pre-sentence report and impact statements, acknowledged the risk Bishop posed but also considered his remorse and employment. He stated, “I am told in the pre-sentence report that it is considered that there is a medium risk of your causing harm to children in the future. However, having read everything in the pre-sentence report and what is in the impact statements and the fact you have shown remorse and the fact you are in employment, I have come to the conclusion that I can suspend that sentence.”
Consequently, Bishop was sentenced to a 12-month jail term, suspended for two years. Additionally, he was ordered to pay a £100 victim surcharge and to register as a sex offender for the next ten years. The court’s decision underscored the seriousness of his crimes while also considering his remorse and efforts to rehabilitate.
Earlier in August 2014, Bishop’s case had already garnered attention when he was granted bail after admitting to sexual offenses involving two young girls over a span of five years. During that hearing, he acknowledged sexual activity with one girl between mid-July and September of the previous year and inciting her to engage in a sexual act on September 8. He also admitted to similar offenses involving another girl from late 2008 to the end of 2010. Bishop’s bail was conditional, and the case was adjourned to September 12, with the judge explicitly stating that bail should not be interpreted as a sign of the case’s final outcome.
Throughout these proceedings, the community in Malmesbury and Sherston was left to grapple with the disturbing revelations about Bishop’s actions, highlighting the ongoing importance of vigilance and justice in protecting vulnerable minors from predatory behavior.