JACK FRERE OF WICK SENTENCED FOR CHILD SEX OFFENCES IN GLOUCESTER COURT
| Red Rose Database
Wick Child Sexual Abuser
In November 2003, a disturbing case unfolded involving Jack Frere, a studio photographer residing on Naishcombe Hill in Wick, who was convicted of serious child sex offences. The court proceedings revealed a troubling pattern of abuse directed at a young teenage girl, with Frere being sentenced to three years in prison for multiple indecent assaults committed against her.
According to court records, Frere, aged 59 at the time, was found guilty by a jury in September of that year. The offences took place during the year 2001, when the victim was between 13 and 14 years old. The Gloucester Crown Court heard detailed accounts of how Frere had preyed on the girl over an extended period, engaging in inappropriate and intimate touching, and attempting to commit various sexual acts.
The first assault reportedly occurred when the girl was just 13 years old. She had been staying overnight at Frere’s residence to help with babysitting duties. During this visit, while she was in bed, Frere assaulted her, an act that marked the beginning of a series of troubling incidents. The court was told that the defendant’s actions were not isolated but part of a pattern of predatory behavior.
During the trial, Frere’s defense lawyer, Lynne Matthews, attempted to mitigate the severity of the charges by suggesting that her client had become “obsessed” with the girl, who cannot be named publicly for legal reasons. She emphasized that Frere was not a paedophile, citing photographs of the victim that, according to her, showed she did not appear to be a child, and referencing a psychiatric report that supported her claim that Frere did not have paedophilic tendencies.
Ms. Matthews also expressed that her client was struggling to accept his conviction, feeling that he was a victim of a miscarriage of justice. She stated, “He feels himself to be a victim of a miscarriage of justice but he is forced to accept the jury’s verdict,” and added that Frere did not plan to appeal the decision, indicating he would serve his sentence.
Further details revealed that since the court case, Frere had lost contact with his three children and was suffering from depression. Despite his work as a photographer, during which he interacted with hundreds of models, he was described as having always behaved “impeccably” in professional settings.
Prosecutor Simon Burns highlighted that the victim was also experiencing personal difficulties, noting, “There has been something of a setback in her life. She is seeing a psychologist.”
Judge David Harington, presiding over the case, emphasized that the sentence was based on the fact that Frere was not classified as a paedophile. The judge stated, “There’s no evidence you have paedophile tendencies and I sentence you on that basis,” underscoring that the court’s decision was not to label him as such but to penalize his criminal actions.
In conclusion, the case of Jack Frere from Wick serves as a stark reminder of the importance of safeguarding minors and the serious consequences faced by those who abuse their trust. His imprisonment reflects the judicial system’s stance on protecting vulnerable individuals from exploitation and abuse, regardless of the defendant’s claims or perceived character.
According to court records, Frere, aged 59 at the time, was found guilty by a jury in September of that year. The offences took place during the year 2001, when the victim was between 13 and 14 years old. The Gloucester Crown Court heard detailed accounts of how Frere had preyed on the girl over an extended period, engaging in inappropriate and intimate touching, and attempting to commit various sexual acts.
The first assault reportedly occurred when the girl was just 13 years old. She had been staying overnight at Frere’s residence to help with babysitting duties. During this visit, while she was in bed, Frere assaulted her, an act that marked the beginning of a series of troubling incidents. The court was told that the defendant’s actions were not isolated but part of a pattern of predatory behavior.
During the trial, Frere’s defense lawyer, Lynne Matthews, attempted to mitigate the severity of the charges by suggesting that her client had become “obsessed” with the girl, who cannot be named publicly for legal reasons. She emphasized that Frere was not a paedophile, citing photographs of the victim that, according to her, showed she did not appear to be a child, and referencing a psychiatric report that supported her claim that Frere did not have paedophilic tendencies.
Ms. Matthews also expressed that her client was struggling to accept his conviction, feeling that he was a victim of a miscarriage of justice. She stated, “He feels himself to be a victim of a miscarriage of justice but he is forced to accept the jury’s verdict,” and added that Frere did not plan to appeal the decision, indicating he would serve his sentence.
Further details revealed that since the court case, Frere had lost contact with his three children and was suffering from depression. Despite his work as a photographer, during which he interacted with hundreds of models, he was described as having always behaved “impeccably” in professional settings.
Prosecutor Simon Burns highlighted that the victim was also experiencing personal difficulties, noting, “There has been something of a setback in her life. She is seeing a psychologist.”
Judge David Harington, presiding over the case, emphasized that the sentence was based on the fact that Frere was not classified as a paedophile. The judge stated, “There’s no evidence you have paedophile tendencies and I sentence you on that basis,” underscoring that the court’s decision was not to label him as such but to penalize his criminal actions.
In conclusion, the case of Jack Frere from Wick serves as a stark reminder of the importance of safeguarding minors and the serious consequences faced by those who abuse their trust. His imprisonment reflects the judicial system’s stance on protecting vulnerable individuals from exploitation and abuse, regardless of the defendant’s claims or perceived character.