DERBY CARE HOME ABUSER NORMAN SULLY ESCAPES PROSECUTION DUE TO DEMENTIA IN DERBY
In October 2018, a disturbing case involving allegations of sexual abuse by a former care home worker from Derby has come to light, revealing the tragic circumstances that prevented legal proceedings against him.Norman Sully, who was employed at Elmhurst Children’s Home located in Lonsdale Place, Derby, during the 1970s, was accused of abusing multiple boys during his tenure as the superintendent of the facility.
After a detailed two-week trial at Derby Crown Court, a jury composed of ten women and two men dedicated over eight hours to reach a verdict.
Their findings confirmed that Sully, now aged 84, had sexually assaulted four former residents of Derby.
The court's proceedings, however, were unique in that they did not seek a traditional guilty or not guilty verdict.
Instead, the jury was tasked with establishing whether the allegations were true, in what is known as a “finding of fact” trial.
Throughout the trial, it was revealed that Sully’s misconduct spanned several years, with the victims coming forward to recount their traumatic experiences.
The jury found that Sully had engaged in sexual assaults on four boys who had lived at Elmhurst Children’s Home.
Despite these findings, Sully was not prosecuted further because of his current health condition.
The court determined that he suffers from dementia, which rendered him unfit to stand trial or face any form of criminal prosecution under the law.
Judge Shaun Smith QC addressed the court, emphasizing that the verdict was not a reflection on the bravery of the victims who testified.
He acknowledged their courage in recounting their painful memories and expressed respect for their willingness to come forward.
The judge stated, “This is no reflection at all on the complainants who bravely came to court and told you what happened to them.
I know they were spoken to before the start of the trial and were told this would be the case.
The important thing, as far as they are concerned, is that someone like you has listened to the allegation of what they said happened to them in the 1970s and believed them.” Prosecutor Dawn Pritchard outlined the allegations at the start of the trial, detailing the disturbing conduct attributed to Sully.
She explained that Sully would often invite boys into his office, where he allowed them to smoke cigarettes through him, blowing smoke into their mouths in a manner reminiscent of a kiss, often while holding the back of their heads.
One victim recounted that this happened on multiple occasions.
Another victim, a former resident, was touched by Sully while lying in his bed at Elmhurst, with the defendant, a former soldier and Rolls-Royce employee, attempting to sexually assault him.
The victim resisted, but Sully allegedly threatened to cease home visits if he did not comply.
The touching was reported to have occurred under the boy’s pajamas.
The court also heard about a third victim who had vapour rub applied to his body by Sully after complaining of a cold.
The prosecutor stated that Sully tried to sexually touch this boy as well, and when the boy resisted, Sully allegedly insisted he would stop visiting if he did not cooperate.
The abuse was said to have taken place in secret, with Sully attempting to conceal his actions.
The most recent victim, who contacted the police in February of the previous year, recounted that he had been sexually abused by Sully shortly after arriving at Elmhurst.
He described how Sully, who was the head carer and whom he called “uncle,” invited him into his office shortly after he arrived.
Sully introduced himself and suggested they would get along well.
The victim reported that one night, he woke up to find Sully touching him sexually while he was asleep in bed.
The following day, he reported the incident to the authorities, leading to police involvement.
Despite this, the victim was told by authorities that he was lying.
It is important to note that the identities of all victims involved are protected by law to prevent further trauma or identification.
The nature of the trial, being a “finding of fact,” meant that the jury was not asked to determine guilt or innocence but rather whether the acts alleged had been committed by Sully.
This approach was necessary because Judge Shaun Smith QC had previously found Sully unfit to stand trial due to his dementia diagnosis.
Consequently, no criminal charges could be pursued against him, and he was given an absolute discharge, effectively ending any further legal proceedings in this case.
