Wedger’s lies: ‘Foxy’ appealed sentence, was denied

Yesterday, we delved into ex-Metropolitan Police officer Jon Wedger’s false allegation that his attempts to bring a case of child trafficking to light had been suppressed by his superior officers. We identified the offender in the case, a woman named Fiona Walsh, and demonstrated that, far from the case being covered up, it had been tried, the offender convicted to 10 years in prison, and the story well-covered in the UK and Irish media.

In the wake of that blog post, a kind reader passed along to us a follow-up to the case: Walsh appealed her sentence, and the resulting judgment, delivered in 2008, offers further insight into the original trial.

(We have summarised the first three paragraphs of the appeal judgment, and will quote directly from the judgment beginning at Paragraph 4.)

The appeal was heard before Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Pitchford. Summing up the original trial, they said that on 30 April and 1 May 2007, in the Crown Court at Inner London, Fiona Walsh [“the applicant”] variously pleaded guilty on rearraignment. The plea was entered to five counts of an 18-count indictment, as follows:

  • Count 1: Causing a child to engage in sexual activity, contrary to Section 10 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003;
  • Count 4: Being concerned in the supply of a controlled drug of Class A (crack cocaine) to another;
  • Count 11: Attempting to procure a girl under the age of 21 to have unlawful sexual intercourse;
  • Count 15: Being concerned in the supply of a controlled drug of Class A (crack cocaine) to another;
  • Count 18: Conspiracy to supply a controlled drug of Class A (heroin).

On 9 May 2007, Walsh was sentenced by HHJ Chapple, as follows:

  • Count 1: Seven years’ imprisonment;
  • Count 4: Four years’ imprisonment;
  • Count 11: No separate penalty;
  • Count 15: 12 months’ imprisonment (those sentences to be concurrent with each other, namely at this stage, seven years’ imprisoment);
  • Count 18: Three years’ imprisonment consecutive.

4. That made a total of 10 years’ imprisonment, less 424 days spent on remand. In addition, an order was made disqualifying her indefinitely from working with children. She was also made the subject of a Sexual Offences Prevention Order prohibiting her from being in the company of a child or young person under the age of 18, save for brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces, unless she was also in the company of that child’s parent, legal guardian or other relative.

5. She now seeks leave, six months out of time, to renew her application for leave to appeal against that sentence, after refusal by the single judge.

6. The facts of this case, reflected where appropriate by the basis of plea, may be summarised in the following way. The applicant was born in 1973, and is therefore now aged 35 years. In the period from 1996 to 2006 she appeared before the courts on some 45 occasions for nearly 100 offences. They involved offences of dishonesty, vehicle-related offending, and from early 2003 onwards offences relating to prostitution.

7. The applicant worked as a prostitute in the Sussex Gardens area near Paddington Station in London. She was known as “Foxy”. Sussex Gardens is apparently a well-known red light area and includes a number of crack houses.

8. In early May 2003 the applicant met a 15-year old girl who was using the name of “X”, that girl being the subject of counts 11 and 15. X was already a regular user of crack cocaine, and was having a sexual relationship with a man called [redacted], who was one of her drug suppliers. The applicant’s first meeting with X took place in a flat off the Harrow Road which [redacted] shared with another drug dealer. Thereafter, the applicant saw X on a more or less daily basis for the remainder of May 2003.

9. During that time, the applicant supplied X with crack cocaine on a number of occasions. Count 15 was agreed to be a sample count in relation to those offences, upon the basis that both were addicts and that the supplies that took place were always in the context of joint purchasing, sharing or giving of drugs, with no financial benefits for the applicant other than obtaining better deals for herself.

10. At one stage [redacted], the drug dealer, told X that if she wanted crack cocaine from him she would have to sleep with both him and the other drug dealer who shared his flat. X was unhappy with this. She left the flat. When she returned, the applicant was there. The applicant took her into the bathroom and said, referring to drugs, “I don’t get it for nothing. Neither do you. You’re going to have to sleep with both of them”. The applicant pleaded guilty to count 11 in this regard, upon the basis that she tried to persuade X to have intercourse with [redacted], knowing that X was under age, but against the background that there was an already established sexual relationship between X and [redacted].

11. As we have indicated, the applicant’s relationship with X lasted for about a month in May 2003. Subsequently, X managed, with the help of Dr Barnardo’s, to break away from drugs and prostitution, and now apparently leads a normal life.

12. It was around Christmas 2003 or January 2004 that the applicant met Y, the subject of counts 1 and 4. Y was born in 1991, and was at this stage aged 12. Y was friends with another young girl called V who lived with her father (a drug addict) at the flat he shared with his girlfriend, who was also a drug addict and worked as a prostitute in the Sussex Gardens area. Thus the girlfriend and the applicant were known to each other, and the applicant used to visit the flat were V lived. It was there that the applicant met Y. She was a vulnerable and easily influenced child with a dysfunctional family background. Her single parent mother was a crack addict and a prostitute. Y was not herself involved in either crack cocaine or prostitution. The applicant wrongly believed that she was in fact a crack cocaine user.

13. The applicant began to supply Y with crack cocaine, such that, without forcing her, Y soon became hopelessly addicted to that drug. The supply continued from time to time over a period of about 2 years. Count 4 was agreed to be a sample count in relation to those offences. The basis of plea was that that supply was always in the context of joint purchasing, sharing or giving.

14. The applicant also introduced Y to prostitution with the result that she became a career prostitute. In her basis of plea, the applicant specifically accepted the prosecution’s fundamental assertion that she had in fact launched Y, aged 12, on that career.

15. Count 1, notwithstanding the width of date drafted, necessarily related to events after the coming into force of the Sexual Offences Act on 30th April 2004. It was accepted to be a sample count reflecting a number of occasions, probably in the region of five or so, over an approximately two-year period when the applicant caused Y to engage in sexual activity, as a prostitute, involving the penetration of her vagina. On occasions Y gave money from prostitution to the applicant, in order that the applicant could supply her with drugs.

16. The evidence showed that, in the result, Y’s life spiralled downwards and out of control, and remained so. It is unnecessary to go into the detail, beyond reference to part of what the learned judge said in passing sentence: “I have listened with sadness to the turn Y’s life has taken since these events. I repeat, no-one can say how Y’s life would have been had she not met you [the applicant]. However, it seems to me that you crushed whatever hope there may have been for her to lead a happy and fulfilled life.”

17. The applicant was arrested in respect of the offences in relation to Y in March 2006. When arrested, she declined to be interviewed. She was remanded in custody to Her Majesty’s Prison Holloway.

18. In April and May 2006, the applicant made a number of phone calls from that prison to a former boyfriend called HB. The calls were routinely recorded. In coded terms, the applicant arranged for small quantities of heroin to be sent to her in letters written by a young woman called LS. The applicant wanted to supply the heroin to another. Three such letters were written by LS but were intercepted by the prison authorities. They were respectively found to contain 0.99 grams, 0.77 grams and 0.86 grams of powder containing heroin. The applicant was arrested in respect of those matters on 20th September 2006. Again, she declined to answer questions in interview.

19. The matters urged in mitigation on the applicant’s behalf included the following matters: firstly, the pleas of guilty, albeit entered very late —in fact, 30th April 2007 which was due to be the first day of trial. However, Miss Marsh today urges us to bear in mind that that meant that neither of the girls in fact had to give evidence during the course of the trial. She also points to the fact that the Crown took the view on that occasion that they need not proceed on any other counts on the indictment relating to three other girls.

20. Also submitted as a matter of mitigation was the basis of plea; the unfortunate circumstances of her own life, resulting in her perception of normality being distorted, and thus explaining the applicant’s conduct towards the two girls. The quantity of the drugs involved in count 18 and the fact that they were intended for but one other person, and the importance of the involvement of the other two co-defendants in relation to that offence, and the manner in which they were subsequently dealt with is drawn to our attention. There was, further, the applicant’s health problems, the fact that she had successfully completed a short duration drug treatment programme in prison, as well as passing a number of drug tests, which meant in fact she was now clean of drugs, and she was now realising how her conduct towards Y, in particular, had been totally inappropriate; the fact that the applicant herself had three children, all of whom had been taken from her and placed into care; and finally, that, despite everything, the applicant still had the support of her parents and a close friend, correspondence from whom was put before the judge.

21. It is clear that the learned judge sentenced in accordance with the basis of plea. Nevertheless, he rightly pointed out, in respect of Y in particular, that children need to be protected and cared for, even sometimes protected from themselves. He went on to state that what the applicant had done, under the guise of befriending Y, was in fact to take gross advantage of her vulnerability, and that therefore the sentences to be passed in respect of counts 1 and 4 needed to properly reflect the public’s abhorrence at what the applicant had done; namely to introduce Y, a 12-year old child, to crack cocaine and prostitution.

22. As to the drugs conspiracy, the learned judge made clear that he was sentencing the applicant upon the basis that she was the instigator. He indicated that he would give credit for the plea, and the other mitigation, and in those circumstances he passed the sentences to which we have already referred.

23. Turning to the co-defendants HB and LS, they had in fact pleaded guilty to count 18: HB on the basis that the supply was to be to another, LS on the basis that she understood that the supply was to be solely to the applicant. HB was sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment, and LS (apparently a reforming drug addict) was given a community sentence with a 12-month residential drug rehabilitation requirement.

24. As to the leave to renew the application, Miss Marsh QC has indicated in her written documentation that the delay was entirely the result of an administrative error by the applicant’s lawyers, and no fault of the applicant herself. Whilst the delay is, even so, a very long one, we nevertheless give leave to renew this application.

25. As to the merits of the application for leave to appeal against sentence, Miss Marsh submits the following: firstly, that the sentence of seven years’ imprisonment imposed on count 1 was manifestly excessive; secondly, that the sentence of three years’ imprisonment imposed on count 18 was manifestly excessive, on its own account, and compared to the sentences passed on her co-defendants; and finally, that the totality of the sentence imposed, namely 10 years, was again manifestly excessive.

26. In support of those submissions, both in her written submissions to this court and before us today, Miss Marsh relies upon the various matters which she urged in mitigation before His Honour Judge Chapple. She also points, as far as count 1 is concerned, to the existing family circumstances of the young victim, how it was that she came to meet the applicant, and how, in Miss Marsh’s submission, the young victim had already been to some extent corrupted before coming into contact with the applicant. There is today also a reference to the Sentencing Guidelines Council in respect of the matters relating to count 1. She also asks us to look very carefully at the judge’s interpretation of the basis of plea relative to the applicant’s view of the young victim, her home circumstances and previous experience.

27. In refusing leave, the single judge made the following observations: “You are 33. Y was 12 when you met her. As the judge pointed out, under the guise of befriending her you took gross advantage of her vulnerability. You supplied her with crack cocaine. You launched her career as a prostitute. The sentences on count 1 and 4 could have been shorter but consecutive. You could have received a consecutive sentence for the offences involving X. The sentence on count 18 was well-merited. You were the instigator. There is no disparity argument. The total sentence here was not manifestly excessive, and sufficiently took into account your pleas and their timing.”

28. Although we accept that the total sentence was severe, we find it impossible to say that it is manifestly excessive in all the circumstances of this very serious case. In fact 10 years is not a day too long. For those reasons this application is dismissed.

And there you have it: Foxy’s appeal judgment spells out a sad and very ugly story of a woman who cynically and seemingly without remorse sexually trafficked at least five young girls (X, Y, and three whose charges were dropped on account of the guilty plea). She ruined the life of at least one, to the point where at the time of judgment she seemed to have had little hope of recovering.

This is not, as Wedger would have us believe, a story of covered-up corruption in high places. It is a story of exploited adolescents, and a woman who was convicted, sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment, and denied her sentence appeal.

At this point, his story having been exposed as a complete sham, Wedger owes his followers and those who have supported him a full and earnest apology. Will that happen? Perhaps when pigs fly.

61 thoughts on “Wedger’s lies: ‘Foxy’ appealed sentence, was denied

      • Or his mental breakdown was so complete he’s deluded as to the true facts. He comes across as very confused.


        • If he is “not a well man” is he to be pitied rather than blamed? Then, his statements could cause problems for innocent parties.

          I guess the average man or woman in the street (in the UK) anyway is more focused on the shenanigans of Brexit than the aftermath of the Hampstead Hoax – or any presumed rift between the royal daughters-in-law. (Am I the only person who couldn’t give two brass monkeys even if Meghan Markle were using a surrogate for the forthcoming ‘happy event’? – not that I think it is).

          I don’t know how the person who makes the ‘Devine and Bowdens…………………….’ videos entitles him/herself here (and I don’t want that person to dox him/herself) but I see a video has been made about one A Devine’s offer to teach grammar for £75 (the first class is free, I’ll give him that). I wouldn’t go near him to learn English as she is spoke personally but D&B…….. has highlighted that he’s moved on to another (in my opinion at least) scam. Does that mean he knows the Maoi Power House shenanigans have been scuttled? Or maybe he’s (i.e. AD) just worrying Brexit might be pushed back and is finding something else. Good video anyway Devine and Bowdens if you read this.

          Completely, off topic but something popped up in the inbox of a gmail account I use (or used to use) for commenting on conspiracy videos. I’d like to be honest and use my real life name but some of the people commenting on those videos appear so divorced from reality I’m loathe to do so. Anyway, I had commented that a certain conspiracy theorist wasn’t always truthful at least a couple of months ago and today I got a comment that I should learn geramatria or numerology. I didn’t reply (still wondering whether it’s worth doing so) but I have no intention of doing so

          Liked by 1 person

  1. Sussex Gardens is apparently a well-known red light area and includes a number of crack houses.

    “Or so I am informed by a friend.”

    Liked by 3 people

    • I’m sure the judiciary sometimes play to the caricature of them as doddery out-of-touch buffoons.


  2. Well done again E.C great reporting once again. Now if Jon wedger is lying about this was else is he lying about to make money off the back of child abuse.we know his promoting nonsense SRA stuff. And saying that people who’s been found to be liars in the courts are credible witnesses. it’s disgusting his allowed to carry on and needs stopping.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Ok…it took me a while to move Wedger from the ‘confused’ category to the ‘arsehole’ category but he’s recently been promoting the numbnut conspiracy theory that the BBC Panorama documentary ‘Saving Syria’s Children’ staged a scene with children pretending to have bombing injuries. He can eff off now. I’m so angry.

    The video he shows on Facebook is from ‘Brees Media’ and features someone who’s done five years of research apparently to show that the injured teenagers were acting or something. And just in case you’re wondering why Jon would do this….well, for money of course. His post says:

    ‘Has BBC Panorama been involved in a staged event? Thousands of children have died in this war.
    Former journalist Robert Stuart has spent 5.5 years investigating and presents his evidence here…
    Donate for more content like this….…

    No Jon. I won’t be donating to you. In fact your post has prompted me to make a big donation to those helping Syria’s children. You know, the people who get their hands dirty doing real work.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Thomas LJ at the time was Senior Presiding Judge of England and Wales (he later went on to become, first President of the Queen’s Bench Division, and then Lord Chief Justice), and would only be assigned to sit on the case if it were either legally significant (which this doesn’t seem to be), high profile, or difficult (High Court and CA judges, unlike judiciary in the magistrates’ court, are specifically assigned to cases). I guess he got it either because it was seen as difficult – given the view of the Single Judge that it was a severe sentence, that’s quite possible – or because it was high profile. Once again, far from being a cover up, TPTP (in their Criminal Appeals Office manifestation) were giving it the highest profile before a senior judge.

    “Not a day too long” is CA-speak for “you utter scumbag” by the way, but I think that is fairly obvious.

    One can’t say, and Mr Wedger certainly won’t, but I’m thinking that it sounds most like he has affixed his fictional identity as a whistleblower to a real case. So, Foxy really was doing these terrible things, but instead of the story being, the police, CPS and courts dealt effectively with her once her offending was known, the story is cut off at the point of the police investigation and attached to Mr Wedger’s narrative of a cover up. Using a real case to provide much of the story is obviously less effort and more convincing.

    I do still wonder what really led him to leave the police and some sort of a breakdown still seems the most likely, which doesn’t mean he isn’t responsible for his actions, but might mean that his grip on reality was impaired, and the company he was keeping can’t have helped.

    I think a real police whistleblower has been quoted on this blog pointing out that Mr Wedger has never actually blown the whistle on anything – blowing the whistle on Foxy’s case is like revealing to the world that Peter Sutcliffe killed people.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I think the debunking of Mr D’s new “grammar” scam may have been by McKenzies Devils. Whoever it was they are doing a good job.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Very nicely done, thanks EC, Flo & Lee ! I’m disgusted by their marketing plan to raise thousands for advertising, throroughly.

      Guess what Jon Wedger……. People are today very aware that CSA is a serious issue that needs to be addressed, it is happening and no thanks to you or your associates ! More like in spite of you and Bill Maloney & the other platforms who’ve hosted you !

      Liked by 1 person

  6. 🙄 Oh Gawd, this’ll be fun…

    By the way, shouldn’t JournoAngie be able to spell her bessie’s name by now? Those tricky 4-letter words, eh.

    Liked by 1 person

    • The customary Hoaxtead rant comes at 17:17.

      He then goes on to talk about Ella and say that if it had been his kids, he might have gone and got a gun and taken the law into his own hands!

      And when someone asks him about the New Zealand “false flag” at 5:41: “I think all incidents as far as I’m concerned are all staged.”


  7. He’s a sick ****. Knowing the content why would anyone want to watch it? Why? What is wrong with these people?

    We like to think we’ve evolved as a species, but really, we’re no different to the Colosseum audience waiting to see gladiatorial deaths and Christians being fed to lions; Salem witch hunters; Public hanging ghouls; French revolutionary guillotine parties.

    I like to keep my faith in humanity, that we’re better than this, but the empirical evidence is not comforting.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Denton’s Wedgie

    In 2010 Paul Robin Denton was jailed for 12 years, convicted of rape. The story was covered in The Harrow Times. In the article Detective Constable Jon Wedger stated: 

    “The level of abuse and the time period it has been spread over has had an overwhelming impact on the victim. Denton has shown no remorse for his actions, even making her go through the ordeal of the trial.”

    He also said:

    “I hope knowing he has been held accountable for his actions will go someway to helping his victim come to terms with what has happened and allow her to move forward with her life.”

    Denton protested his innocence. In 2012 all 12 of his convictions were overturned. They were deemed unsafe and he was acquitted.

    He was also arrested for a different offence in 2008. His wife had made an allegation that he had abused their child. The investigating officer was DC Jon Wedger of the Metropolitan Police Child Abuse Unit. The case went to trial and he was found not guilty. 

    On the blogsite Christian Faith Under Fire, Denton claims that his wife set him up because he had submitted an application to court for contact. A court date was set and she was due to attend. The break up was bitter. Thought bubble: Acrymonious split, custody battle, child abuse allegation. Sounds familiar. Thought bubble: another reason why Wedger/Maloney may have shunned Hampstead case.

    Also on the blog, Denton says that his wife knew that she was committing perjury but was a led by (amongst others) ”investigating” officer DC Wedger.

    Elsewhere on the site, Denton recants his experience of arrest and incarceration. He states that:

    ”The Investigation was as insipid as the false accusations that fueled it.”

    He claims Wedger accepted gifts from his wife’s sister, in front of witnesses and asserts:

    ”The policeman was guilty of impropriety and he knew it. No person in public office investigating a trigger offense accepts a gratuity from the complainant or a gift”

    I have to admit that I have not read the whole piece in its entirety. It is lengthy, rather ranty and uses words such as ‘cuntpower.’ However, the essence is that Denton claims he was stitched up by his wife and DC Jon Wedger.

    In the same token, I have not deeply looked into Denton’s background. There are scattered posts on the net describing him as a preacher, scientologist and a Rainbow Tribe cult leader.

    Much has been written about the Rainbow Tribe movement. Heavily criticised, there are accounts online that it is a white supremicist group with Christian apocolyptic prophecies. On the website New Age Fraud, adminstrator educatedindian reposted a comment from a forum that states the movement is ‘a dangerous cult’

    As I have said I have not really delved into Denton’s background. But whether he is a shady character or not isn’t the point. The point here is that Jon Wedger took cases to court that were unsuccessful and that may have brought into question his investigation skills. It certainly would have been a dent in his career. Thought bubble: The boss pulled him in.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Pingback: Wedger’s failed court cases | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

Comments are closed.