Teenage child rapist loses sentence appeal bid

A child rapist who claimed his offences were committed by a 'dark alter ego' he called Charlie has lost an appeal against his prison sentence.

Jay Williams, aged 18, was jailed in August last year after he pleaded guilty at Wolverhampton Crown Court to raping a boy under the age of 13.

The offences occurred when he was living in Wolverhampton.

Williams was given an extended sentence, comprising seven years' custody, with another four to serve on licence after release.

He appealed to top judges against the term, but saw his case thrown out of the Court of Appeal in London.

The court heard Williams, of no fixed address, was a deeply troubled youth with a difficult family background.

He came forward of his own accord in 2011 and admitted the offences.

Williams said he had attacked the boy when he himself had been in his mid-teens, but appeared to show little remorse for what he had done.

While on a programme for abusers he claimed that a malevolent dark entity, who he called Charlie, had taken control of him and was behind the attacks.

However during later assessments Williams said Charlie was actually more like his conscience.

He said he attacked the boy because he hated children and anyone intellectually inferior to him, and admitted he was still sexually interested in children.

Appealing against the sentence handed down, lawyers argued that the seven-year custodial portion of the sentence was 'manifestly excessive'.

They said the term did not properly reflect the fact he had come forward and admitted what he did, or his young age at the time of the abuse.

Williams still claimed the existence of Charlie, saying he thought the manifestation may occur for around 20 per cent of the time.

But Lord Justice Treacy said a bleak picture had been painted of Williams' future by a series of reports by experts.

He said Williams could have been looking at a sentence of nearly 20 years if he had been an adult.

He added: "The sentence imposed by the judge cannot be described as manifestly excessive and, accordingly, this appeal must be dismissed."