When first we practise to deceive!
Fathers’ rights campaigner jailed for abusing young child
Lee Doyle, from Sea Mills, was known for his involvement with the civil rights group and its protests calling for better rights for caring dads.
Having sexually abused the youngster, he denied any wrong-doing, leaving the child to face the traumatic consequences of giving evidence in court.
Doyle, 26, was convicted of causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity as well as engaging in sexual activity.
Judge David Ticehurst imposed the maximum jail term of four years.
He told Doyle: “You were convicted on clear evidence and the aggravating feature is that your victim was very young.
“The child was forced to give evidence at a very young age.
“It’s abundantly clear having to give evidence has had a regrettable impact on the child.
“You continue to maintain your innocence when it’s abundantly clear you were guilty.”
The judge, who said he thought that potentially Doyle posed a serious risk of harm to young children, made him the subject of a Sexual Offences Prevention Order keeping him away from youngsters for 10 years.
Doyle was ordered to register as a sex offender indefinitely.
Nicholas O’Brien, prosecuting, read out personal statements from the victim’s mother, father and grandmother.
The child’s mother said that when the offences came to light the young victim had to be medically examined, which caused distress.
She said: “From the time of the interview the child had a disturbed sleep pattern, and would often wake up during the night crying. The child was having nightmares and getting upset. Around this time the child also became protective of its bed, not wanting other family members to sit on it.”
An original trial set for October last year was postponed because Doyle’s solicitors asked for the child to be seen by a psychologist – a request which was retracted following an intermediary’s assessment.
The child’s mother said the victim had to then prepare for a trial last month, and when cross-examined remained unshaken.
The child’s father said the child had become a bit more argumentative, less obedient and it seemed the child’s mind had wandered.
He said: “When the trial concluded and we were told the verdict the child was upset.
We had to explain to the child again that the only person at fault was Doyle.”
The child’s grandmother said the child had mentioned that Doyle had warned about telling anyone else about what happened.
She said: “The child suffered from a great deal of bad dreams, some of these were specifically about Lee Doyle.”
Giles Morrison, defending, said his best mitigation was his client’s young age, previous good character and good behaviour since.
He said he was concerned about the imposition of the order because Doyle, who has a background working in sales, was involved in family proceedings regarding children from a former relationship.