8 months prison for grabbing a child's crown jewels.
Discussion
On a day when a MP gets 16 months in prison, and rightly so imo, for fiddling his expenses, why did this pastor only get 8 months? The sentence seems very lenient.
The-Independent said:
An evangelical pastor who fondled a teenage boy while he slept and touched a young preacher while sharing a hotel bed has been jailed for eight months.
Dr Albert Odulele, 47, admitted indecently assaulting the boy and sexually assaulting the man during a hearing at Bexley Magistrates' Court on March 3.
Today at Woolwich Crown Court, in London, he was jailed for eight months and six months respectively, to run concurrently, and put on the sex offenders' register for five years.
The court heard how Odulele, founder of the Glory House International Pentecostal church, would frequently share hotel beds while travelling the world with a large entourage of security and pastors.
In around 2003, he was watching television with a boy over whom he had "assumed paternal influence".
When the boy fell asleep he put his hand in his underwear and fondled him. The boy said he did not know what to do and was too scared to move.
Odulele's wife was pregnant with their daughter at the time.
The boy was left "traumatised" and lost interest in academic work, before telling his mother about the abuse.
When confronted by the boy's mother in spring last year, Odulele fell to his knees, crying and apologising, prosecutor Tom Nicholson told the court.
In 2004, he touched the inner thigh of a pastor while sharing a bed with him and another man at the Dartford Bridge Hilton.
The man brushed off the advances of Odulele, the "guiding light and father figure" of the church, before being touched again, the court heard.
Mr Nicholson said a number of church members challenged Odulele about his behaviour and appealed to a bishop of the church - without success.
Sentencing him, His Honour Judge Charles Byers described the attacks as "opportunistic".
Judge Byers said: "You were a man in a position of trust who was well respected. People turned to you for advice and no doubt for comfort."
He added that Odulele was an "intelligent man" who would have known his behaviour "was wrong".
In a pre-sentencing report Odulele, a trained medical doctor, said: "I am ashamed of my behaviour as homosexuality is at odds with my religious beliefs."
"I am extremely distraught and upset at the hurt and distress I have caused the victims."
Craig Crosbie, defending, said Odulele, the son of a Nigerian civil servant who came to Britain in 1986, has no previous convictions.
Glory House International, based in east London, claims to have a congregation of 3,000 and branches in Leeds, Birmingham and Brazil.
At his height Odulele would preach to 140,000 people at a time in stadia in Africa and the United States, the prosecution said.
Odulele was a major figure in Christian evangelism.
Odulele initially denied the crimes but later admitted to police he had been "battling" with his sexuality for years.
Glory House International is a registered charity with a turnover of £2 million a year.
LinkDr Albert Odulele, 47, admitted indecently assaulting the boy and sexually assaulting the man during a hearing at Bexley Magistrates' Court on March 3.
Today at Woolwich Crown Court, in London, he was jailed for eight months and six months respectively, to run concurrently, and put on the sex offenders' register for five years.
The court heard how Odulele, founder of the Glory House International Pentecostal church, would frequently share hotel beds while travelling the world with a large entourage of security and pastors.
In around 2003, he was watching television with a boy over whom he had "assumed paternal influence".
When the boy fell asleep he put his hand in his underwear and fondled him. The boy said he did not know what to do and was too scared to move.
Odulele's wife was pregnant with their daughter at the time.
The boy was left "traumatised" and lost interest in academic work, before telling his mother about the abuse.
When confronted by the boy's mother in spring last year, Odulele fell to his knees, crying and apologising, prosecutor Tom Nicholson told the court.
In 2004, he touched the inner thigh of a pastor while sharing a bed with him and another man at the Dartford Bridge Hilton.
The man brushed off the advances of Odulele, the "guiding light and father figure" of the church, before being touched again, the court heard.
Mr Nicholson said a number of church members challenged Odulele about his behaviour and appealed to a bishop of the church - without success.
Sentencing him, His Honour Judge Charles Byers described the attacks as "opportunistic".
Judge Byers said: "You were a man in a position of trust who was well respected. People turned to you for advice and no doubt for comfort."
He added that Odulele was an "intelligent man" who would have known his behaviour "was wrong".
In a pre-sentencing report Odulele, a trained medical doctor, said: "I am ashamed of my behaviour as homosexuality is at odds with my religious beliefs."
"I am extremely distraught and upset at the hurt and distress I have caused the victims."
Craig Crosbie, defending, said Odulele, the son of a Nigerian civil servant who came to Britain in 1986, has no previous convictions.
Glory House International, based in east London, claims to have a congregation of 3,000 and branches in Leeds, Birmingham and Brazil.
At his height Odulele would preach to 140,000 people at a time in stadia in Africa and the United States, the prosecution said.
Odulele was a major figure in Christian evangelism.
Odulele initially denied the crimes but later admitted to police he had been "battling" with his sexuality for years.
Glory House International is a registered charity with a turnover of £2 million a year.
Edited by Victor McDade on Friday 1st April 11:01
Pommygranite said:
'battling sexuality'? Battling paedophilia more like.
8mths is terribly low, surely longer is justified.
Major assumption there. It says "Teenage boy". Could be 17, 18, not necessarily 13.8mths is terribly low, surely longer is justified.
Paedophilia is targeting those before puberty.
Not condoning his actions, just being pedantic.
(Edited to add after googling, the boy was 14. Doesn't alter the pedantry though
)Edited by cazzer on Friday 1st April 09:34
3 years in prison sounds right to me and this would mean he'd be put on the sex offenders register indefinitely.
Eric Mc said:
There will be people who think that ANY sentence that doesn't involve physical punsihment or even death would be too lenient.
I'm not one of them but, if 8 months is too lenient, what WOULD be an appropriate sentence?
I await the variable answers with interest
I'm not one of them but, if 8 months is too lenient, what WOULD be an appropriate sentence?
I await the variable answers with interest
Eric Mc said:
There will be people who think that ANY sentence that doesn't involve physical punsihment or even death would be too lenient.
I'm not one of them but, if 8 months is too lenient, what WOULD be an appropriate sentence?
I await the variable answers with interest
Physical punishment AND death?I'm not one of them but, if 8 months is too lenient, what WOULD be an appropriate sentence?
I await the variable answers with interest
Eric Mc said:
I'm not one of them but, if 8 months is too lenient, what WOULD be an appropriate sentence?
I await the variable answers with interest
Eric, without wanting to "pick a number" I've always thought it slightly odd that you can murder someone or kick someone to within an inch of their life and appear to stand a good chance of getting out sooner than someone who commits armed robbery.I await the variable answers with interest
It's easy to cherry pick cases for and against on both sides but for me rather than focussing on picking a number, I just find it odd that we seem to be saying that touching someone up deserves less punishment than nicking some money.
It waries hugely. Sentences will be based on the judge, the sentencing limits set out in the statute books and guidelines set by the Home Office (or possibly now the Department for Justice).
I prefer to keep an open mind and allow the courts to decide what they think is appropriate for each case.
As I said earlier, these types of offences are highly emotive and there will be people who will hold extreme views as to how much such people should be punished.
What I thought would be interesting woiuld be to see what type of range of punishments would come from the PH massive.
I prefer to keep an open mind and allow the courts to decide what they think is appropriate for each case.
As I said earlier, these types of offences are highly emotive and there will be people who will hold extreme views as to how much such people should be punished.
What I thought would be interesting woiuld be to see what type of range of punishments would come from the PH massive.
Eric -
What we have here is not an isolated incident but 2 which have been challenged and a convictions secured for.
We can't assume that there are other offences which have gone unheard due to lack of sufficient evidence to consider a successful prosecution but we could easily suppose that there might well be. After all 2 offences on different dates some time apart gives a very different impression to that of a one off "moment of madness".
With this in mind I feel that, in the World we live in, his sentence is far too lax and should be at least a couple of years and life on the SOR, rather than only 5 years.
Now, turning to 'My World', with the above in mind, and the second offense takes this from a short custodial sentence and life on the SOR to chemical castration and a minimum 5 year term in the clink.
Sticking my neck out a little here but this sort of offense is far harder to consider an appropriate punishment than one where things had gone further. No one in their right mind doubts the mental trauma of being subjected to such abuse but by the sounds of what we have heard there was no physical injury which is the point at which, in my World, there would be an expediential increase in the severity of the punishment be it of a custodial or corporal nature.
What we have here is not an isolated incident but 2 which have been challenged and a convictions secured for.
We can't assume that there are other offences which have gone unheard due to lack of sufficient evidence to consider a successful prosecution but we could easily suppose that there might well be. After all 2 offences on different dates some time apart gives a very different impression to that of a one off "moment of madness".
With this in mind I feel that, in the World we live in, his sentence is far too lax and should be at least a couple of years and life on the SOR, rather than only 5 years.
Now, turning to 'My World', with the above in mind, and the second offense takes this from a short custodial sentence and life on the SOR to chemical castration and a minimum 5 year term in the clink.
Sticking my neck out a little here but this sort of offense is far harder to consider an appropriate punishment than one where things had gone further. No one in their right mind doubts the mental trauma of being subjected to such abuse but by the sounds of what we have heard there was no physical injury which is the point at which, in my World, there would be an expediential increase in the severity of the punishment be it of a custodial or corporal nature.
Any advance on 5 years?
The point I am making is trhat the "correct" severity of the sentence varies depends on the individual who is deciding that severity.
I too think that 8 months is far too lenient but so far every single suggested length of sentence proffered by PHers has been different.
The point I am making is trhat the "correct" severity of the sentence varies depends on the individual who is deciding that severity.
I too think that 8 months is far too lenient but so far every single suggested length of sentence proffered by PHers has been different.
Eric Mc said:
There will be people who think that ANY sentence that doesn't involve physical punsihment or even death would be too lenient.
I'm not one of them but, if 8 months is too lenient, what WOULD be an appropriate sentence?
I await the variable answers with interest
it must be nice to be able to turn the other cheek, but the poor boy will have issues the rest of his life!I'm not one of them but, if 8 months is too lenient, what WOULD be an appropriate sentence?
I await the variable answers with interest
for starters the priest should pay his threapy bills.
you know these rape crisis/threapy charities
they are not female only!
The touching of another blokes thigh was a homosexual trying it on with another adult, no problem there though I'd probably have smacked him one.
Touching up a 14 year old IMHO means he is unsafe to have in society so I'm afraid my solution would be to remove him from society. This means death or permanent incarceration, maybe set aside a little island somewhere and put em all there, give them all the comforts etc but keep them away from kids.
The only way I would accept them back into society would be if they were chemically sterilised.
This is not a desire to see such people punished, just don't want them wandering round endangering children.
Touching up a 14 year old IMHO means he is unsafe to have in society so I'm afraid my solution would be to remove him from society. This means death or permanent incarceration, maybe set aside a little island somewhere and put em all there, give them all the comforts etc but keep them away from kids.
The only way I would accept them back into society would be if they were chemically sterilised.
This is not a desire to see such people punished, just don't want them wandering round endangering children.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff