Eight years and 10 months’ jail for child sex offences

Michael Derek Cotterill’s offending took place between April 1987 and October 1990 and involved two girls who were of primary school age at the time. Sobs could be heard coming from the public gallery as the sentence was read out.

The 82-year-old had denied three counts of inciting a female child to commit an act of gross indecency with himself, two of inciting a female child to commit acts of gross indecency with other children unknown, two of indecent assault, and one of common assault.

After a trial lasting five days in January, it took the court just over an hour to find him guilty of each offence with unanimous verdicts.

Six of the offences were committed against a complainant referred to as Miss A, and two against Miss B. Miss B had initially made her complaint in 1991 but it had not been pursued as Cotterill had been in prison at the time. She was traced as a potential witness after Miss A made her first complaint in 2022, and she renewed her allegations.

The court heard how Cotterill’s sexual offending began in 1961 but there was nothing since 1991 after he had received treatment.

Crown Advocate Fiona Russell told the court that between 1961 and 1973, Cotterill had been convicted in the Magistrate’s Court on 10 counts of indecently exposing himself to females between the ages of five and 36. In 1974 and 1991 he was jailed for six and five months respectively for indecently assaulting girls aged six and 12 respectively. In 2010 he was jailed for 21 months for indecently assaulting a seven-year-old girl in the late 1980s.

In a victim impact statement, Miss A said that having to give evidence in court had brought everything back to her. She kept thinking about it and thought she would do so for the rest of her life. There was no way she could put what he had done to her into words, she said, as the damage was ‘too great’.

Miss B said the defendant’s offending had affected her at school and in the workplace. She always feared that one day she would ‘have to face Mick again.’ It had also affected other relationships of hers and when she thought about it she became upset.

Defending, Advocate Sam Maindonald said her client continued to deny the offending for which he stood to be sentenced. He had been prejudiced at trial by the historical nature of the allegations. He had entered the care system aged three and was now in poor health.

If Miss B’s complaint had been pursued when she first made it in 1991, he might have served a sentence concurrent with the other one.

The lead offences against each complainant were indecent assault and attracted sentences of five years and seven months in respect of Miss A, plus three years and three months consecutive in respect of Miss B. All other sentences were lesser and concurrent.

Distressing evidence was heard at the trial at which both complainants gave evidence.

The court heard how children were made to strip naked and simulate sex. When one of the girls swore at him because of his treatment of her, he lifted her up by the hair and washed her mouth out with a bar of soap. Cotterill told the complainants not to tell anyone about what had happened, or their parents would find out that they smoked.

Delivering the court’s sentencing remarks, Judge Catherine Fooks said there were numerous aggravating factors in this case, namely the young ages of the complainants, the defendant’s multiple offending over an extended period, an element of grooming, and other children had been present at the time.

There was also a large age gap between him and the girls – some 30 to 40 years.

He maintained his innocence which was his right, but it deprived him of any mitigation. The fact that Miss B’s complaint had not been pursued in 1991 was not a factor in his favour as it had been open to him then to admit it.

What he had done to both girls was degrading and disgusting, she said, and they had to live with the consequences ever since.

‘Sexual offending against children is extremely serious and a sentence of immediate custody is the only outcome,’ said Judge Fooks.

The probation service had put the defendant at a low risk of re-offending against girls or boys, but not no risk.

He will be subject to an extended sentence licence for five years upon his release from prison, and notification requirements for 10 years from the day of conviction.