Forensic Sexology Case Summary

Case Report

In 2014 Rolf Harris was tried by the state of England in the Southwark Crown Court. Harris was tried for 12 counts of indecent assault on 4 victims between the ages of 8 and 19. At the time Harris was between the ages of 39 – 56.

These crimes occurred between the years of 1969 – 1986; where he used his celebrity status to take advantage of three of his victims; these were classified as fast and opportunistic offences. Victim C was one of Harris’ daughters’ friends and made seven of the twelve charges against Harris.

All of the victims wrote victim impact statements about the effect these assaults had on their lives. Victim 3's statement claims that the assaults started at age 13; whereas, Harris claims that this was entered

This case is an example of forensic Sexology as there is a relationship between human sexuality and the legal system in place in society (McCartan, 2011). This case involves paedophilia and sexual abuse as the ICD10 classifies paedophilia as a sexual preference for children usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age (Blanchard, 2013).

There are many cases that have similarities to R v. Rolf Harris (2014); These are inclusive of but not limited to, Roman Polanski who has been on the run from the USA since 1978 for the drugging and raping of a 13-year-old in 1977 (Parfitt, 2017). Another famous case is R Kelly who was acquitted of 14 charges of statutory rape in 2008 (CBS News, 2008). In Australia Robert Hughes of “Hey Dad” fame was also found guilty of 9 counts of sexual and indecent assault; this was committed on victims aged between 7 & 15 and he received a 10-year jail term sentence (Hughes v. R, 2015). Although Jimmy Saville died before over 500 allegations came out against him (The Conversation, 2013); his chauffeur Ray Terret was jailed for 25 years on 7 charges of rape and 11 or sexual assault in the 1960’s and 1970’s and mirroring Harris he used his status to target young and vulnerable girls between the ages of 13 – 15 (Yahoo Finance,

Yet Harris was ordered to pay costs of persecution but no awards of compensation given to the victims as it was deemed too complex of an issue. This is not helped by the fact that there is no consensus as to the legal stance on paedophilia and therefore each act must be considered separately (Harrison, Manning, & McCartan, 2010).

It was necessary to address the offending behaviour, together with the factors personal to the offender. He also had many people advocating for his good character; which was taken into consideration when judgement was made. Other matters that are essential to take into account are the frequency of abuse and the complainant – defendant relationship (Pozzulo, Dempsey, & Crescini, 2010).

There is also literature on how the timing of the hearing can affect the sentence in a negative way. This is because the victims aren’t seen as credible as if seen straight away. Pozzulo, Dempsey, and Crescini (2010) found there is an increase in guilty verdicts the closer the case is heard to the abuse, this may have been a deciding factor in giving Harris a less than the maximum