December 2012 Cirencester man Gunter Wirth admitted sex with under-age girl but has not been sent to prison A FORTY-EIGHT-YEAR-OLD Cirencester man who admitted getting a 15-year-old girl pregnant has walked free from court. IT technician Gunter Wirth of Dyer Street was given a two-year jail sentence – suspended for two years – along with 200 hours of unpaid work and was ordered to pay £500 costs. Judge Jamie Tabor QC at Gloucester Crown Court said this was “one of the most unusual cases I have ever encountered.” The judge took the unusual step of hearing evidence from the victim – now 24 years old – before passing sentence. He said she was a “forthright young woman” and that he had taken her views into account in passing sentence. Wirth had previously pleaded guilty to having sex with a 15-year-old girl between March 31 and April 31 2003, a well as committing an offence of illegal sexual activity with the girl between April 30 and June 30 2005. He had refused the services of a lawyer and insisted on representing himself, handing the judge letters of reference from clients including the family of James Bond author Ian Fleming, which he said showed they were standing by him. Prosecutor Lisa Hennessy told the court when the 15-year-old became pregnant she hold told her family the father was a boy called Michael, but continued to have a relations with Wirth after the child was born. When Wirth – a South African who came to live in the UK in 2002 – was arrested in May this year he admitted the offences and said having sex with the under-age girl was an “error of judgement”. DNA tests proved he was “almost certainly” the father of the child. He argued a prison sentence would cause difficulty for his family who relied on his earnings and also that his nine-year-old daughter has cerebral palsy and requires round-the-clock care. “Granted, I have made a mistake,” he said. “Someone asked me why I just didn’t leave and go to South Africa after I was arrested, but I want to stay and take responsibility.” Passing sentence, the judge said he had to reflect the “unique circumstances” of the case in his decision.