MILFORD HAVEN SEX OFFENDER HUGO HENICKENSEN FAILS IN APPEAL TO CLEAR HIS NAME
| Red Rose Database
Milford Haven Sexual Abuser
In November 2011, a man from Milford Haven, Hugo Henricksen, aged 56 and residing on Hamilton Terrace, failed to overturn his conviction in an appeal court. Henricksen was convicted by a jury at Swansea Crown Court in 1995 of indecently assaulting a 13-year-old girl, a crime for which he served a 12-month prison sentence.
Despite his consistent denial of any wrongdoing, Henricksen sought to challenge his conviction nearly 16 years later by taking his case to the Court of Appeal in London on the previous Monday. However, after review, three senior judges, led by Sir John Thomas, President of the Queen’s Bench Division, dismissed his appeal and upheld the original verdict.
Mr. Justice Henriques, who sat alongside Sir John Thomas and Mr. Justice Kenneth Parker, pointed out that Henricksen’s appeal was filed far beyond the acceptable timeframe. The judge stated, “The appeal had been brought far too late and had no chance of success.”
Henricksen was accused of molesting the teenage girl on a sofa during a visit to her house where she was babysitting in 1995. His appeal arguments included the claim that forensic examination was not conducted on the girl’s clothing or the duvet she was lying on. He also argued that the girl should have been questioned about her own alleged nightclub visits, and suggested she might have had an “agenda” separate from innocence.
Rejecting these claims, Mr. Justice Henriques emphasized that Henricksen had missed the statutory 28-day deadline for appealing by several years. The judge explained that such a significant delay means the appellant must present “substantial grounds” to render the conviction “unsafe,” which Henricksen had failed to do.
He summarized, “This was a very simple case in which the jury heard an allegation made by a 13-year-old girl, denied by the appellant. The jury, having heard the evidence, were sure of his guilt. We have considered whether any appeal might have had a prospect of success. We do not consider that it would.”
Despite his consistent denial of any wrongdoing, Henricksen sought to challenge his conviction nearly 16 years later by taking his case to the Court of Appeal in London on the previous Monday. However, after review, three senior judges, led by Sir John Thomas, President of the Queen’s Bench Division, dismissed his appeal and upheld the original verdict.
Mr. Justice Henriques, who sat alongside Sir John Thomas and Mr. Justice Kenneth Parker, pointed out that Henricksen’s appeal was filed far beyond the acceptable timeframe. The judge stated, “The appeal had been brought far too late and had no chance of success.”
Henricksen was accused of molesting the teenage girl on a sofa during a visit to her house where she was babysitting in 1995. His appeal arguments included the claim that forensic examination was not conducted on the girl’s clothing or the duvet she was lying on. He also argued that the girl should have been questioned about her own alleged nightclub visits, and suggested she might have had an “agenda” separate from innocence.
Rejecting these claims, Mr. Justice Henriques emphasized that Henricksen had missed the statutory 28-day deadline for appealing by several years. The judge explained that such a significant delay means the appellant must present “substantial grounds” to render the conviction “unsafe,” which Henricksen had failed to do.
He summarized, “This was a very simple case in which the jury heard an allegation made by a 13-year-old girl, denied by the appellant. The jury, having heard the evidence, were sure of his guilt. We have considered whether any appeal might have had a prospect of success. We do not consider that it would.”