OPENING - 8 MINS

INTRO –
- Hello, my name is Sonia Gardi, this is my partner Lauren Appleton, and we
are arguing against the proposition that Gary Glitter should be remanded to
prison to serve his full sentence due to the severity of his crimes.

Introduce all points:

Paul Gadd, best known by his stage name Gary Glitter is a former English Popstar,
who was imprisoned for possession of child pornography in 1999 and was also
convicted of child sexual abuse in 2006, and a series of sexual offences
(including attempted rape) in 2015.
Both my partner & I can acknowledge that Paul Gadd is a man of inexcusable
and abhorrent actions and are not here to argue otherwise. Instead, we wish to
bring to light the injustices that would occur if Paul Gadd were sent back into
prison, in particular.
These are matters such as prison not being about rehabilitation, discussing his
health, his quality of life if he remains out of prison, and the potential breaches
of his human rights if he is sent to prison.

Point 1: Prison is not rehabilitating

Prison is a very tough form of punishment because it takes away ones freedom,
potential support networks. The system of prisons is not intended to rehabilitate
but solely punish.
This can be disadvantageous because when people are let out into society without
parole, they haven’t rehabilitated and have been subject to demeaning treatment,
which can ultimately cause more damage, and provoke them to reoffend.
By sending Paul back to prison, the damage to his mental health done will only
worsen. An alternative option to this is a psychiatric hospital, where he can get help
and work on his disturbing habits and behaviours.
Law:
Evidence:
According to a report by the Home Office – named ‘Proven reoffending statistics
for England and Wales’, published October 2020] found that almost 101,000
proven re-offences were committed over the one-year follow-up period by around
25,000 adults. Those that reoffended committed on average 3.97 re-offences.
Analysis: Therefore, sending him back to prison will likely benefit no one and he will
likely not want to change his behaviour, but rather cause further damage than him
being sent to a mental health hospital where he will have a support network.

Point 2: Rape happens in prison (breach of human rights)

Furthermore, prison not only does not promote rehabilitation, but it can also be
argued it encourages the opposite due to the trauma one can be exposed to,
which I will be further elaborating on, and criminal influences that can be further
engrained in their minds, which my partner will further elaborate on.
There are a huge number of assaults that occur is prison, and although many
government bodies are aware of this fact, not many procedures are placed to try and
prevent it.
The Prison Act 1952 does claim that the rights of access to the courts and of
respect for one's bodily integrity - that is, not to be assaulted – are fundamental
rights that continue to apply to prisoners. However evidence gathered from research
and statistics prove otherwise.

Evidence:
… An analytical summary of that presented exploratory findings on the nature of
alleged sexual assaults reported in prisons in England and Wales found that
there were 260 assault incidents per 1,000 prisoners, all accounts of these
assaults breaching either section 18, 20, and 47 of the The Offences Against
the Persons Act 1861, and 11% of these were coded as rape.
Furthermore, additional research conducted by Gov Uk Justice Data, in 2022,
found that Sexual offenders are the number one target group for prisoner rape.
Using this data found, it can be assumed that Paul Gadd, as an elderly man, who
has committed multiple sexual assaults and has no way of defending himself is
extremely susceptible to these threats.
Furthermore, Paul was released from U.K. prison halfway through sentence for
sexual abuse.
Analysis: By sending Paul back into prison, with the information that he is likely to
be targeted as a victim of assault or raped within prison. Willingly knowing this
and knowing that it breaches not only the offences against the person, but the prison
reform as this can also be classified as degrading treatment, which is a breach of
article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
Lauren: 4 mins
Point 4: Putting him around people of similar crimes and mindsets will be bad
influence and likely cause him to reoffend rather than rehabilitate.
Evidence: Any statistics of offenders in prison vs on parole or in a psychiatric
hospital.
Analysis: Putting him in a mental hospital will encourage rehabilitation, prison wont.

Point 5: he is old (therefore vulnerable/cannot defend himself) and has a

cardiovascular disease. He will not get the medical attention needed in prison and
that is degrading treatment (breach of article 3)
Law: article 3
Maybe find case law that has a similar situation and see what was held.
Conclusion; breaching human rights

Sonia conclusion – 4 mins

Point 3: His life will not go back to normal if he is let out. It will be nearly impossible
for Paul Gadd to continue to be a threat to society as he will be on parole and
carefully monitored. He will continue to be held accountable for his crimes, just not
in a manner that will be of breach of his human rights.
There are articles constantly surrounding him and scrutinizing his every move.
Articles from Daily Mail live, Somerset Live, and the mirror all alledge that he is
planning to flee the UK and run to Spain. However, when closely scrutinising these
articles, you can find that there any no sources to back this, but rather rumor and
exaggerated titles to continue to defame Gary and make him look worse and worse.
Not only are these articles potentially a breach of the Defamation Act 2013, but
they also hold no truth. The reality is that as stated earlier, Paul will likely be closely
monitored by the police and placed on parole, with any suspicious activity giving him
a one-way ticket straight back into prison.
Analysis: His life will be bad anyway