Man Jailed For Offence On Deaf-mute Boy (Press, 16 November 1978)

Roger Andrew Philpott, a 30-year-old restaurant proprietor, was sentenced to 18 months in prison by Mr Justice Roper in the Supreme Court on 16 November 1978 for committing sodomy against a 14-year-old intellectually handicapped deaf-mute boy. Philpott pleaded guilty to the charge in the Magistrate’s Court and was committed for sentencing in the Supreme Court. Defence counsel, Mr E. Bedo, presented mitigating factors regarding Philpott’s troubled background, noting that he had been adopted at birth and had not experienced the love and affection that his adoptive parents bestowed on his younger sisters. This perceived rejection persisted through his formative years, contributing to his social difficulties. Philpott was described as a physically weak and unappealing adolescent who often faced bullying and social exclusion. As a result, he gravitated towards casual homosexual relationships for several years, culminating in a five-year relationship with a peer, which ended six months prior to the offence. His loneliness and feelings of dejection led to his harmful association with the victim, whom he did not recognise as mentally impaired due to the boy’s deafness. The court acknowledged Philpott as an otherwise normal, hardworking individual who had only recently come to understand the gravity of his offence. Mr Justice Roper highlighted that despite the solitary charge against Philpott, evidence suggested a pattern of continuous association with the victim rather than a singular incident. Reports from probation officers and psychiatrists indicated Philpott had a difficult early life, exacerbated by parental rejection. While conveying sympathy for Philpott, Justice Roper emphasised the serious nature of his crime, given that the victim was a 14-year-old boy with significant intellectual disabilities, functioning at the level of a nine-year-old. The judge expressed scepticism about the notion that Philpott was unaware of the boy's handicap, especially since they had known each other for an extended period. Justice Roper noted that the sexual orientation of the act was less relevant in this context, suggesting that a similar sentence would have been warranted had a heterosexual man committed the same offence against a disabled girl. Ultimately, the sentence reflected the need for accountability, acknowledging the difficulties Philpott would face during his imprisonment while affirming that no alternative to incarceration was appropriate in this case.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand