A paedophile who abused a 14-year-old boy in a Richmond Council children’s home was allowed to walk free from court with two years’ probation.
Police files on former social worker John Stingemore, unlocked by this newspaper under the Freedom of Information Act, show the child molester preyed on the teen at Grafton Close children’s home, Hounslow.
He then got a new job looking after young boys by providing forged references.
But police chiefs have refused to confirm or deny the existence of any other records on the predator, citing “national security”.
The paedophile died in 2015 as he awaited a trial over numerous historic abuse allegations.
Conviction
Stingemore was convicted in September 1983, aged 41, of sexually abusing a 14-year-old boy, we can now reveal.
The offence was said to have happened “on or before July 31, 1981”.
The arrest record, from June 1983, gave his address as Gwynneth Grove, Bexhill-on-Sea, Sussex.
It said: “Whilst employed as deputy warden of working boys home, indecently assaulted boy resident.”
The “place of offence” was given as: “Grafton House, Grafton Close, Hounslow (TW Section) – Boys home run by Richmond Borough Council”.
Stingemore was taken to Twickenham police station, where he was described as 6’1” and slim with grey eyes, receding light-brown hair and a “polite southern” accent.
“Responds to sympathy when dealt with firmly,” police noted.
Fraud
He was sent to Richmond Magistrates’ Court, then Kingston Crown Court, where he also faced four charges of “criminal deception” – namely, fraud and forgery offences.
Having left Richmond Council in 1981 with no job to go to, he had remained unemployed until late 1982.
But by the time police arrested him in 1983, he had found a new job as a social worker at the now defunct Berkshire County Council.
The paedophile was now running another boys’ home for the authority in Reading.
He’d got the job by supplying forged references, suggesting he knew he would not get a good reference from Richmond.
He pleaded guilty to the indecent assault on the Richmond teen, as well as forgery and fraud offences over the fake references.
But he was only given two years’ probation and ordered to pay £400 towards his Legal Aid bill.
Further charges
Stingemore didn’t come to the police’s attention again until 2013, when he was arrested for a historic sex assault on a boy under 16 and possessing an indecent photo of a child with intent to show or distribute it.
Police National Computer (PNC) records obtained by this newspaper stated: “Linked to paedophile investigation involving offences of conspiracy to commit buggery, making indecent images of children and indecent assaults on children during the 1980s and after this time.
“Many offences at the Grafton Close children’s home. Indecent assault on a boy.”
More charges followed in July 2013, including buggery of a boy under 16, indecent assaults on boys under 16 and under 14, taking indecent images of children and conspiracy to rape a girl under 16.
He pleaded not guilty to all the charges but died in 2015, weeks before his trial.
At the time of his arrest and subsequent death, he lived in Stonehouse Drive, St Leonard’s-on-Sea.
A coroner was unable to ascertain his cause of death – but no inquest was held.
His co-defendant, a priest called Tony McSweeney, was convicted of indecently assaulting a teenage boy from Grafton. He was also convicted of three indecent images offences. He was jailed for three years.
More:
Unanswered questions
We sent Richmond Council a list of questions arising from the contents of the files.
We asked when Stingemore left the council’s employment, whether he left of his own accord or was sacked, and whether his departure was connected to any allegation of abuse.
We also asked whether Stingemore received any sort of pay-off when he left.
The authority responded: “Richmond Council today is a very different organisation from the past and protecting children from harm is our top priority.
“Following extensive checks against historic records, we have not found information relating to Mr Stingemore, however it is not unusual not to hold details for someone employed such a long time ago.”
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here