Fred Talbot, the popular teacher turned TV weatherman, stood trial between 20th January and 13th February 2015 accused of 10 counts of indecent assault.
On 13th February he was convicted of two counts out of the ten.
The details are vague. We know there were six counts of indecent assault against one pupil (alleged to have been aged 14-15) where Mr Talbot accepted a relationship, but stated that it was consensual after the complainant had turned 16 (the age of consent has gone up since then). The allegations include offences of masturbation, oral sex and digital penetration, all taking place between October 25 1969 and October 24 1970.
The remaining charges were: an allegation of indecent assault, by masturbation, on a male under 16, between January 1 1975 and December 31 1976; the same offence against another male under 16 between the same dates; and indecent assault by sexual touching on a fourth complainant between January 1 1977 and December 31 1977.
The final count of buggery is said to have occurred against the fifth complainant, aged under 21 at the time, on or around August 2 1983.
It seems that he was convicted of two counts of indecent assault and acquitted of the remainder. The two convictions related to boys who were aged 14 and 15 in 1975 and 1976.
We have a fact sheet on sentencing for historical cases. This is an area that is evolving, and we are moving towards the position where the sentence passed is the one that would be passed now, unless this is higher than the maximum lawful sentence.
The starting point are the guidelines. The difficulty here is that we have no idea which of the offences the jury found were proved. The maximum sentence will be 10 years, but it is not possible to say much more until the actual two offences that resulted in convictions are identified.
Mr Talbot was remanded in custody until sentence on 13th March, presumably for a Pre-Sentence Report. The BBC reported the Judge as saying that “his sentence should start immediately bearing in mind his “abuse of trust”. This is not a correct statement of the law relating to bail, but we presume that this is mis-reporting rather than the Judge re-writing the bail act.