Michael Gillard's Social Media Accounts
Know a Social Media Account Linked to Michael Gillard?
Want to add information? Log in to your account to contribute accounts and phone numbers.
MICHAEL GILLARD OF CHERTSEY: CHILD SEX OFFENDER'S SENTENCE APPEAL REJECTED IN GUILDFORD
In March 2010, a child sex offender named Michael Gillard from Chertsey had his appeal against a potentially lifelong sentence dismissed.Gillard, 53, was given an indefinite sentence for public protection (IPP) at Guildford Crown Court in September 2005 after admitting to ten counts related to making indecent images of children.
His convictions are part of a lengthy history of child sex offences, including four for indecency with minors and other crimes involving child pornography.
The IPP sentence meant that Gillard, who remains incarcerated years after his initial attempt at parole, would have to demonstrate that he is no longer a risk to be released. However, his appeal on Wednesday was unsuccessful when three senior judges upheld the sentence.
Mr. Justice Walker commented on the case, stating, "The serious nature of his previous offending against children meant the crown court judge was justified in finding that he posed a risk to children."
His latest prosecution stemmed from an incident in summer 2005, when Gillard took his wife’s computer—accessible to him—to a shop for repair. A technician discovered a folder labeled 'photographs' on the hard drive, which contained images of child pornography. Upon investigation, police found nearly 2,000 images, some classified as the most serious categories of obscenity.
During court proceedings on Wednesday, it was noted that Gillard was honest when questioned and has since made significant efforts to address his criminal behavior. Despite this, Mr. Justice Walker, alongside Lady Justice Hallett and Mr. Justice Nicol, affirmed the open-ended nature of his sentence.
He stated, "We cannot think it is in any way arguable that the substantial risk of serious harm which plainly arises in relation to sex offences with children is not a factor which fully entitled the sentencing judge to reach the conclusion that he did."