SIMON HILL FROM CHELTENHAM ESCAPES PRISON DESPITE MOLESTATION OF TEENS
| Red Rose Database
Cheltenham Sexual Abuser
In a recent court hearing held in Cheltenham, Simon Hill, a 53-year-old man residing on Fairview Road, was found guilty of serious sexual offenses involving two teenage girls. Despite the gravity of his actions, the presiding judge, William Hart, chose to impose a community-based sentence rather than incarceration, citing considerations for long-term societal benefits.
Hill had admitted to indecently assaulting a 13-year-old girl in 2003 and sexually assaulting a 16-year-old girl in 2009. The court heard that the first incident involved Hill touching the young girl on her legs before engaging in a sexual assault. The victim, now pursuing a degree that includes psychology and criminology, expressed feelings of distress and difficulty in confronting certain aspects of her studies due to the trauma she endured.
Six years after the first offense, Hill was also found to have committed a similar act against the second girl, further compounding the seriousness of his conduct. Prosecutor Julian Kesner detailed these incidents during the hearing, emphasizing the pattern of behavior and the impact on the victims.
In his defense, Jon Holmes highlighted Hill’s previous good character and expressed that Hill showed genuine remorse for his actions. The judge acknowledged these points but noted that both victims preferred to see Hill imprisoned. Nonetheless, Judge William Hart explained that his decision was guided by the need to serve the broader interests of society and to ensure that Hill receives appropriate treatment.
Instead of jail time, Hill was sentenced to a three-year community order, which includes supervision and mandatory attendance at the Thames Valley Sex Offender Programme for 60 days. Additionally, a sexual offences prevention order was issued against him, and he was disqualified from working with children indefinitely. Hill was also ordered to register as a sex offender for five years.
Judge Hart pointed out that sentencing guidelines for such offenses typically recommend a prison term of 15 to 18 months. However, he emphasized that incarceration would not allow Hill to undergo the necessary sex offender treatment, which is more effectively administered outside prison. The judge expressed understanding that many would believe Hill should be imprisoned, including the victims and the public, but stressed the importance of considering the wider implications and the potential for rehabilitation.
In conclusion, Judge Hart underscored the importance of balancing justice with the potential for reform, aiming to protect society while giving offenders like Hill the opportunity to address their issues through appropriate programs.
Hill had admitted to indecently assaulting a 13-year-old girl in 2003 and sexually assaulting a 16-year-old girl in 2009. The court heard that the first incident involved Hill touching the young girl on her legs before engaging in a sexual assault. The victim, now pursuing a degree that includes psychology and criminology, expressed feelings of distress and difficulty in confronting certain aspects of her studies due to the trauma she endured.
Six years after the first offense, Hill was also found to have committed a similar act against the second girl, further compounding the seriousness of his conduct. Prosecutor Julian Kesner detailed these incidents during the hearing, emphasizing the pattern of behavior and the impact on the victims.
In his defense, Jon Holmes highlighted Hill’s previous good character and expressed that Hill showed genuine remorse for his actions. The judge acknowledged these points but noted that both victims preferred to see Hill imprisoned. Nonetheless, Judge William Hart explained that his decision was guided by the need to serve the broader interests of society and to ensure that Hill receives appropriate treatment.
Instead of jail time, Hill was sentenced to a three-year community order, which includes supervision and mandatory attendance at the Thames Valley Sex Offender Programme for 60 days. Additionally, a sexual offences prevention order was issued against him, and he was disqualified from working with children indefinitely. Hill was also ordered to register as a sex offender for five years.
Judge Hart pointed out that sentencing guidelines for such offenses typically recommend a prison term of 15 to 18 months. However, he emphasized that incarceration would not allow Hill to undergo the necessary sex offender treatment, which is more effectively administered outside prison. The judge expressed understanding that many would believe Hill should be imprisoned, including the victims and the public, but stressed the importance of considering the wider implications and the potential for rehabilitation.
In conclusion, Judge Hart underscored the importance of balancing justice with the potential for reform, aiming to protect society while giving offenders like Hill the opportunity to address their issues through appropriate programs.