Rolf Harris could be a free man as soon as early 2017.
Justice Sweeney sentences Harris to a total of fives years and nine months. Without early release that would see the convicted pedophile free the week before his 90th birthday. However, Harris could be out in half that time, possibly January 2017, as he will be eligible for early release when he has served half the sentence. “Should you breach the terms of that licence, including by the commission of further offences, you will be liable to recall,” the judge stated in his closing remarks.
The sentence seems unbelievable soft for the repeat offender pedophile who for one case (count 2) will only serve 6 months imprisonment. In that case the victim testified, “…Rolf Harris took advantage of me and made me feel ashamed. That an adult man could do what he did to me made me feel so powerless. He treated me like a toy that he played with for his own pleasure with absolutely no regard for what he was inflicting and then getting on with his life as if nothing had happened….”
At the time the victim was 15 years old. Harris was 50.
Count 3, 4, 5 and 7 were seen as the most serious of the assaults.
In the Judges closing remarks he said of Count 3, “You committed the offence in breach of trust, and it was further aggravated by being committed in ‘C’’s own home. You left your wife and ‘C’’s parents downstairs and you went up to ‘C’’s bedroom on the top floor of the house. You spat on the fingers of one hand, put that hand down her jeans and knickers, and digitally penetrated her vagina. The episode lasted for about a minute until she managed to get away”.
“On Count 4 you indecently assaulted ‘C’ after Xmas 1980 when she was still aged 15 and you were aged 50. Again you were visiting the ‘C’’s with your wife. Again you committed the offence in breach of trust and it was further aggravated by being committed in ‘C’’s own home. You left your wife and ‘C’’s parents downstairs whilst you went up to the TV room on the first floor where ‘C’ was. You spat on the fingers of one hand, put that hand down her dungarees and knickers and digitally penetrated her vagina. You continued for up to a minute until she managed to get away”.
In Count 5 against his daughter Bindi’s friend staying with the family on holiday, “On this occasion after Bindi had got up, and whilst she and/or your wife were in the house, and again in breach of trust, you went into the bedroom where ‘C’ was still in bed. You took her pants down, spat on the fingers of one of your hands, and digitally penetrated her vagina (Count 5), then you took off your glasses bent down to her vagina and started licking it.”
During Count 7 “Again ‘C’ was visiting Bindi at Bray and was sleeping in one of the two single beds in Bindi’s room. On this occasion, whilst Bindi was still asleep in her bed and ‘C’ was in the other bed you entered the room, again in breach of trust, pulled ‘C’’s pants down to her ankles, spat on the fingers of one hand and digitally penetrated her vagina (Count 7), then you licked her vagina again keeping an eye on Bindi (who was still asleep).”
The sentences that I impose are as follows:
Count 1: 9 months’ imprisonment.
Count 2: 6 months’ imprisonment consecutive.
Count 3: 15 months’ imprisonment consecutive
Count 4: 15 months’ imprisonment concurrent
Count 5: 15 months’ imprisonment concurrent
Count 6: 12 months imprisonment concurrent
Count 7: 15 months’ imprisonment consecutive
Count 8: 12 months’ imprisonment concurrent
Count 9: 12 months’ imprisonment consecutive
Count 10: 9 months’ imprisonment concurrent
Count 11: 9 months imprisonment concurrent
Count 12: 12 months’ imprisonment consecutive
In consideration of the sentence, the judge said he took Harris’s age into consideration.
In his remarks he explains the sentence:
“On your behalf I am asked to take into account a number of matters in mitigation, including the following:
(1) With the exception of ‘C’ the offences were brief and opportunistic.
(2) The fact that you have no previous convictions and have led an upright life since
1994 ‐ albeit it is accepted that that must be tempered by the reality, underlined in the Attorney General’s Reference (above), that you got away with your offending for years.
(3) The fact that you have a good side, that there are many people who know you who speak well of you, and that over many years you have dedicated yourself to a number of charitable causes.
(4) The fact that you are not in the best of health, as attested to in the report of Dr Fertleman, and that therefore, although capable of serving a prison sentence, it will be particularly tough on you.
(5) The fact that your wife, who you help in looking after, has various health problems, as attested to in the report of Dr Mitchell‐Fox.
(6) That you should be enabled to spend your twilight years with your family.
Harris has also been ordered to pay the legal expenses of the victims. It is estimated the Australian entertainer is worth $26 million and has over $3 million in cash in his personal bank account and around $4 million in his company account.
