STEVE MAUND SENTENCED IN TENBURY WELLS: LOTTERY WINNER'S 8-YEAR JAIL TERM FOR CHILD SEX ABUSE REDUCED

In a significant legal development, Steve Robert Maund, a man from Coronation Road, Nelson, who gained notoriety as a National Lottery jackpot winner, has had his prison sentence reduced following an appeal. Maund, aged 43, was originally sentenced at Worcester Crown Court last July to ten years in prison after pleading guilty to multiple charges of child sexual abuse. The offences, which spanned over a decade, involved indecent assaults on four young girls, as well as indecently assaulting a boy and committing buggery on another boy.

It was revealed during the court proceedings that these heinous acts began in the 1970s, with the abuse reportedly taking place in Maund’s hometown of Tenbury Wells. The court heard disturbing details about how Maund would manipulate his young victims, often telling them that their silence was a secret, a common tactic among abusers to maintain control and silence.

Following an appeal by Maund, London's Criminal Appeal Court reviewed his case and decided that the original ten-year sentence was 'manifestly excessive.' As a result, the court reduced his incarceration period to eight years. Despite this reduction, the court maintained certain financial penalties, including orders for Maund to pay a total of £60,000 in compensation to his six victims, with each victim receiving £10,000. Additionally, Maund was ordered to contribute £847 towards prosecution costs.

Judge Mr Justice Sachs, who presided over the appeal alongside Lord Justice Longmore and Mr Justice Davis, commented on Maund’s fortunate circumstances, noting that his recent lottery windfall had enabled him to meet the compensation obligations. It was disclosed that Maund had approximately £100,000 remaining from his £300,000 lottery winnings, which he could use to fulfill these financial commitments.

The court’s decision also highlighted the severity of Maund’s actions, with Mr Justice Sachs describing the abuse as involving 'filthy experiences' inflicted upon vulnerable children during the 1970s and 1980s. The judge emphasized that Maund had exploited the trust of his victims, often assuring them that their secrets would remain safe, a typical tactic used by abusers to deepen their control.

In his remarks, Mr Justice Sachs acknowledged the profound and lasting damage caused by Maund’s conduct, referencing victim statements that detailed the emotional and psychological injuries sustained. Despite Maund’s previously good character, the court recognized the gravity of his crimes.

While the original sentence was ten years, the appeal court’s decision to reduce it to eight years was based on the fact that the initial sentence was 'manifestly excessive,' especially considering Maund’s guilty pleas and the circumstances of the case. The court’s ruling underscores the ongoing concern over child abuse cases and the importance of appropriate sentencing to reflect the severity of such crimes, even when the offender has experienced a recent change in fortune through a lottery win.