Gary Glitter victim says prison release ‘not the justice she was promised’

A victim of disgraced pop star Gary Glitter has said his release from prison “was not the justice” she was promised.

The paedophile glam rock singer – who had a string of chart hits in the 1970s – was freed on Friday after serving half of his 16-year sentence for sex crimes.

He was jailed in 2015 for sexually abusing three schoolgirls.

Richard Scorer, head of abuse at Slater and Gordon – who represents one of those victims, said his release was “particularly distressing and traumatic” for those he attacked, adding: “The early release devalues her suffering and that of his other victims.”

The 79-year-old left HMP The Verne – a low security category C jail in Portland, Dorset – on Friday after eight years behind bars.

Glitter, whose real name is Paul Gadd, was freed automatically halfway through a fixed-term determinate sentence and will now be subject to licence conditions.

Reacting to Glitter’s release, Mr Scorer, whose client is now making a child sex abuse damages claim against the disgraced singer, said: “I’ve spoken to my client today and like every victim of serious sexual assault facing early release of her abuser, today is an incredibly difficult day for her.

“The abuse, including repeated rapes which our client suffered from the age of 12, have left her with a life sentence.

“Paul Gadd, more commonly known as Gary Glitter, has never admitted his offences, has never apologised and has never shown any remorse.

“It is therefore particularly distressing and traumatic to read of him being released halfway through his sentence, albeit on licence.”

Mr Scorer added: “Our client feels this was not the justice she was promised and the early release devalues her suffering and that of his other victims.

“This is a very hard day for her and we imagine for other victims too.

“Their feelings should be at the forefront of everyone’s minds at this time”.

The sex offender was at the height of his fame when he preyed on his vulnerable victims who thought no-one would believe their claims over that of a celebrity.

He attacked two girls, aged 12 and 13, after inviting them backstage to his dressing room and isolating them from their mothers. His third victim was less than 10 years old when he crept into her bed and tried to rape her in 1975.

The allegations only came to light nearly 40 years later when Glitter became the first person to be arrested under Operation Yewtree – the investigation launched by the Metropolitan Police in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal.

Sentencing the singer, Judge Alistair McCreath said all the victims were “profoundly affected” by the abuse.

He said it was “difficult to overstate the gravity of this dreadful behaviour” when referring to the assault on one victim, telling Glitter he was able to attack another “only” because of his fame.

The court heard there was no evidence that Glitter had atoned for his actions after he was found guilty of one count of attempted rape, one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 13, and four counts of indecent assault.

He later lost a Court of Appeal challenge against his conviction.

Glitter’s fall from grace occurred years earlier after he admitted possessing 4,000 child pornography images and was jailed for four months in 1999.

In 2002, he was expelled from Cambodia amid reports of sex crime allegations, and in March 2006 he was convicted of sexually abusing two girls, aged 10 and 11, in Vietnam and spent two-and-a-half years in jail.

Once released from prison, sex offenders are subject to licence conditions which can include being banned from visiting certain areas to protect victims and their families, having to live at a certain address, and facing a curfew.

They will have to attend regular meetings with probation officers, who they have to tell if they change their name and must request permission before travelling abroad – with the potential for stricter restrictions on their movements depending on the risk they pose.

They can also be barred from having unsupervised contact with children and using the internet.