
On May 3 this year, the
Isleworth Crown Court convicted Pahalagama Somarathana, a high profile Sri
Lankan Buddhist monk living in Britain, on four counts of indecent assault. He
was on trial for crimes he committed more than thirty years ago, when he
sexually assaulted a 9-year old girl. The monk was then 33.
Victims state
that attacks took place over a period of time, where the girls were enticed by
the monk with sweets. The court heard that one girl was attacked in the shrine
room, another reportedly in the monk’s living quarters. The girl who had been
assaulted in the shrine room was told that if she revealed what had happened to
her, he would kill her father.
He faced nine charges of rape, and was
convicted on four counts of indecent assault. He was sentenced to seven years in
prison by the presiding judge, who spoke at length about how the actions of the
monk permanently scarred the adult life of one of the victims.
Below, we
reproduce excerpts from the sentencing remarks made by the presiding judge, with
the names of the victim removed.
JUDGE MATTHEWS: You are clearly a young man
of some ability, because within 3 years or so, you were entrusted with the
setting up and
development of the temple in Selsdon, where from the start you
were the chief Buddhist monk, and you retained that role over some 30(?) years
or more. Simultaneously you’ve been central to the development of an orphanage
and school, together with the temple in Gampaha in Sri Lanka, and you have a
devoted following in both countries. However, within weeks of your arrival in
Chiswick, you committed the first of four indecent assaults on a young girl, who
was aged 9 at the time. The first three of these assaults took place in your
room at the temple. The attraction for the 9-year-old was the offer of fruit
polos. On the first of those occasions, while seated at your desk, you put your
hand under her dress and under her knickers and touched her in the area of the
vagina. Each of the two subsequent occasions followed a similar pattern but
progressing to you penetrating her vagina with your fingers. The fourth and
final occasion moved from your room to the shrine room. You were dressed in your
robes, you pushed her against a wall, you pulled her knickers down, you inserted
your fingers into her vagina. She felt excruciating pain. You said if she told
anybody, not only would her mother be very angry, but her father would die. This
crime, the fourth and final occasion, has been difficult for many to comprehend,
the digital penetration of the vagina of a 9-year-old in the shrine room, in the
presence of the Buddha. A betrayal of your religion, betrayal of the Sri Lankan
Buddhist community in this country, but above all, a betrayal of the breach of
the trust placed in you by XXXXXX XXXXXXXX and others on her behalf, not least
her parents, who were strong supporters of you at the time.
You pleaded not
guilty. Your mitigation is inevitably limited. The conduct of your defence
involved pointing the finger of blame at your fellow monks. I make it clear
that’s not an aggravating feature but it does nothing to assist your mitigation.
There has been, even now, a total absence of remorse, you preferring, if the
author of the pre-sentence report is correct, to allow, if not encourage, your
public to believe that this is all a terrible mistake. I take into account of
course the loss of your good name. I bear in mind the passage of time that has
elapsed since, and the very many good things that you have undertaken during
that time. However, it cannot be said that at the age when you committed these
offences you were young and immature.
I take into account that you are now
aged 66. And when I read all the tributes, the glowing tributes paid to you by
very many people in places high and low, and indeed I heard many of them speak
very eloquently about you during the course of the trial. I have read your
personal letter to me, and I’ve read everything that’s set out in the
pre-sentence report, and I’ve listened very carefully to the very able
submissions made on your behalf by Mr. Stone.
The principles the court should
follow in cases of this kind, as both counsel have reminded me, are correctly
set out in a case called Hall(?), a recent case reported last year, and I am
also reminded that when I consider the seriousness of the case, that a section
of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 143, directs me to look at the
offender’s culpability in committing the crime and any harm it causes.
When
you said to XXXXX XXXXXXX that she mustn’t tell anyone because her father would
die, she believed you, such was your power. And she says in her victim impact
statement that she felt as if everything in her life had changed. She loved
school, where she was already an outstanding pupil, but she was forced to spend
substantial periods away. Her parents who, I repeat, were great supporters of
you, had no idea what had gone on. Her (inaudible) doctors (inaudible) brought
in a consultant paediatrician to see her. Fortunately for her and indeed for
you, that particular crisis period passed. But as she got older and matured, she
says – I’ve no reason to disbelieve her – that it affected her relationships
with those closest to her, in particular her previous partner and her husband.
And if truth be known, the full extent of the impact of your behaviour on her
will never be known.
I pass sentence in accordance with the sentencing regime
in force at the time of the offences, and the maximum sentence for indecent
assault on a female under 13 years of age was 5 years. And in passing sentence,
I bear in mind the principle of totality. So please stand up.
The sentence I
pass in relation to count 1 is one of 12 months’ imprisonment, on count 2, 2
years’ imprisonment, count 3, 3 years’ imprisonment.
All those to be
concurrent to each other. In relation to count 5, 4 years’ imprisonment, but
consecutive to the 3 years on counts 1, 2 and 3, making a total of 7 years
altogether.