A PENSIONER has been found guilty of two indecent assaults on schoolboys. George Rault, 70, of 1, Oberlands Terrace, St Martin’s, denied the offences.

A charge of inciting a child to commit an act of gross indecency with him, and another of committing an act of gross indecency with a minor, were dismissed after discrepancies emerged during the complainant’s cross-examination.

All charges, which involved boys between the ages of 10 and 14, were said to have taken place at Rault’s home.

Adjourning sentence until 5 May, Magistrate Russell Finch told the defendant he was likely to be sent to prison.

Following the verdict, Advocate Peter Ferbrache asked for a social inquiry report on his client prior to sentencing.

Remanding Rault out of custody, Magistrate Finch said he would consider the appropriate sentence for what he said were ‘vile activities’ when he had read the report.

The fourth day of the case began with Advocate Peter Ferbrache summing up.

It was not enough, he said, to convict somebody on the basis that it was suspected that they had done something illegal.

The dispute in this case was over the evidence provided by the boys.

‘Allegations of a sexual nature are easily made but not so easily refuted,’ he said.

‘The task you have to discharge is the most difficult one of anybody in this court over the past few days,’ he told Magistrate Russell Finch.

Advocate Ferbrache said that any decent person would naturally be abhorred by sex offences committed against children.

‘What I say is not meant to be an attack in any way on the boys.

‘They are not bad boys and I hope they have good futures.’

Advocate Ferbrache said there had been clear conflict and material inconsistency in some of the evidence put before the court.

‘My submission is that the prosecution cannot produce the evidence on these four charges for you to be sure that these charges can be made out.’

Magistrate Finch said there was no room for emotion in his deliberation.

Everything had to be resolved on its own merits and findings of fact were essential.

In dismissing the two charges, both for alleged offences against the same 10-year-old boy, Magistrate Finch said he had not considered the evidence of the three remaining complainants as corroborative.

Of the two boys who were indecently assaulted, Magistrate Finch said that the 12-year-old had given clear and convincing evidence and had not been undermined by cross-examination.

The other boy, a 14-year-old, had also had to face close examination.

He rejected Rault’s evidence in denying his indecent assault of both boys.

He was sure both boys had shared the defendant’s bed and contact had taken place.

It was plain that the physical acts that took place against the 12- and 14-year-old amounted to indecent assaults.

The evidence of a 12-year-old who appeared in court for the defence had lacked in spontaneity.

Two charges of committing sex offences against a 13-year-old boy were dismissed by Mr Finch earlier in the week.