MICHAEL PRIOR'S SHOCKING CHILD ABUSE SENTENCE REDUCED IN KING'S LYNN

In a significant development in a long-standing child abuse case, Michael Prior, a 65-year-old resident of Albion Street in King's Lynn, has seen his prison sentence nearly halved following an appeal. Originally sentenced to three and a half years at Norwich Crown Court in January for heinous offences committed over two decades ago, Prior now faces a reduced term of just two years.

Prior was convicted by a jury after denying allegations of indecent assault and indecency with a child, charges that involved two young girls under the age of ten. The offences reportedly took place many years prior to his arrest, with one incident involving Prior placing a young girl’s hand on his crotch while he was naked. In another instance, he was found to have encouraged a different girl to touch his genitals. Despite the severity of these allegations, Prior was able to maintain his liberty for many years because police lacked sufficient evidence to prosecute him at the time.

It was only when the offences eventually came to light that Prior was brought to justice. During the trial, he denied any responsibility for the acts, but the jury found him guilty. Judge Simon Barham, who sentenced him in January, remarked that the victims had suffered long-term effects from his actions and emphasized the need for a severe sentence.

However, last week, Prior’s legal representatives challenged the original sentence, arguing it was excessive. The appeal was heard by Mr Justice Collins, sitting alongside Mr Justice Irwin. In his ruling, Mr Justice Collins acknowledged that the offences occurred many years ago and that sentencing should be aligned with the laws in force at the time of the crimes.

He also noted that Prior’s physical disabilities, age, and good character should be taken into account, recognizing that imprisonment would be particularly harsh for him. Nonetheless, the judge emphasized the damaging impact of Prior’s conduct on the victims and considered the maximum penalties available under the legislation at the time. Based on this, he concluded that a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment for each offence would be appropriate, leading to a total of two years. Consequently, the original sentence was reduced, and the appeal was allowed, marking a significant change in the case’s outcome.