MARTYN DOWN PLYMOUTH MAN JAILED FOR GROPING TEENAGE GIRL IN CAR NEAR LEE MILL
In November 2012, a man from Plymouth was sentenced to prison for a disturbing incident involving a teenage girl.Martyn Down, aged 21, was convicted of indecently touching a schoolgirl after luring her into his vehicle and driving her to a secluded area near Lee Mill.
The Plymouth Crown Court heard that Down had purchased vodka for the underage girl before the assault took place, which added a troubling dimension to the case.
Judge Paul Darlow, presiding over the case, sentenced Down to 15 months in a Young Offender Institution.
During the sentencing, the judge expressed serious concerns about Down's behavior, stating, “You present something of a risk of serious harm to teenage girls.” The court was told that Down had denied any sexual activity with the girl, who was under 16, on July 1 of the previous year.
However, after a trial, the jury found him guilty of the charges.
Prosecutor Emily Pitts outlined the sequence of events, revealing that Down had met the girl and given her alcohol.
She explained that later that evening, when the girl was heavily intoxicated, Down offered her a lift home.
Instead of taking her directly home, he stopped the vehicle in a remote location, where the assault occurred.
Another girl, who was sober and also in the car, witnessed the incident and saw Down touch the teenager indecently beneath her underwear.
Defense lawyer Rupert Taylor argued that Down did not accept the allegations and suggested that the offense limited the probation service’s ability to work with him effectively.
Taylor described Down as immature for his age and emphasized that he showed no bravado in court.
He also pointed out that the girl involved was not a “little girl,” implying a degree of maturity or consent.
Judge Darlow characterized the sexual contact as opportunistic, highlighting the vulnerability of the teenage girl.
He remarked, “You were 20 and she was a teenager and she was unable to resist at the time.
The offence was not sustained, but that was because a more sober friend intervened just in time.” The judge concluded that the immediate custodial sentence was necessary to serve as a deterrent, emphasizing that the shock of imprisonment could help reduce the risk of reoffending by highlighting the seriousness of such behavior.
