A former church youth leader from Hove has been spared a prison sentence after a jury convicted him of indecently assaulting two young men.
Daniel Reed, 57, of Stonecroft Close, Hove, was a youth leader at the Clarendon Church, in Clarendon Villas, Hove, at the time of the offences more than 30 years ago.
It was known for many years as CCK – or the Church of Christ the King – and has since become known as the Emmanuel Church.
The boys were members of the church youth group and Philippa McAtasney, defending, said that they were aged at least 16 at the time. They are now 49 and 51.
Jason Sugarman, prosecuting, told Hove Crown Court yesterday (Thursday 2 November) that the jury had found Danny Reed guilty of three offences of indecent assault on an indictment containing 11 counts.
He was found not guilty of four offences and the jury was unable to reach a verdict on three charges. They are “to lie on the file”, meaning that he does not face a retrial.
Mr Sugarman said: “All the offences were committed at Mr Reed’s home where he had invited the victims to join him, having been a volunteer youth leader in a group that they attended.
The maximum sentence for an indecent assault or sexual assault is 10 years and Mr Sugarman told the court: “There has undoubtedly been psychological harm to the victims.
“There was a degree of grooming involved in the offending. (He) was not in a position of trust but he was a respected member of the church in a position of responsibility, albeit unpaid.
“The defendant made his home available to younger men who looked up to him in an apparently calculated attempt to have opportunities to seek contact with them. That demonstrates a degree of planning.
“Mr Reed’s good character is a mitigating feature. The offences were committed when he was relatively young although he was an adult with some responsibilities.
“There was evidence of a significant mental health condition after the defendant was confronted by church leaders.
“That was not linked to the commission of the offending and does not appear to have been present at the time of the offending.”
Miss McAtasney said that the careful consideration of the jury showed that they believed Reed’s victims were 16 or over at the time of the offences, adding: “They were not convicting the defendant of any offences on children.
“The victims were in their late teens and this defendant was in his early twenties at the time and certainly under 25.”
She said that her mitigation was not intended to diminish the effects of Reed’s behaviour but added that “as soon as he was asked to stop, he did”.
Miss McAtasney said that one victim had said in evidence that it was “an isolated incident” and that Reed had been “trying it on”.
When the offences happened 30 to 35 years ago, Reed was immature and naïve, she said, and there was no significant planning.
She said: “He has since lived a blameless and unblemished life. He was caring, gentle and honest. He had no other convictions, had always been in work and been in a committed monogamous relationship for more than 20 years with his husband Jim.
“We pray all of those factors in aid. The probation officer assessed him as at a low risk of re-offending.
“At the time (of the offences) he was struggling with his own sexual identity … He was struggling with his faith and with being homosexual and that not being acceptable in his strict conservative church.
“Some harsh measures were deployed to try to rid him of his homosexual demons.”
Miss McAtasney said that when he was remanded in custody on Wednesday 6 September, he lost his job, adding: “The clanging of the prison gates has been a salutary lesson.
“Prison is not meant to be a picnic to use the colloquial term … but the regime at the moment has been particularly harsh because of understaffing and overcrowding.”
Despite that, she said, “he has been a model prisoner.”
Judge Jeremy Gold said: “What might seem like a matter of little importance at the time can have a lifelong impact (on the victims). It has been, in their minds, a matter of shame.”
The evidence showed, the judge said, “the destructive impact that sexual offending can have on people’s lives.”
Judge Gold said: “This all happened many years ago in the late 1980s … You were in a state of turmoil over your sexuality. The Clarendon Church held strict views about homosexuality which was regarded as a sin.”
After complaints about Reed’s behaviour, meetings were held, the judge said, but it was not clear what had happened.
He said: “You were submitted to a bizarre exorcism procedure to rid you of the demons of homosexuality.
“The elder concerned (David Fellingham) had no recollection of that particular incident but was frank enough to say that such procedures did take place at that time.
“Homosexuality was seen as something of a lifestyle choice which is a view that I hope is no longer held in these more understanding times.
“It led to you spending a period of time as an in-patient in a local psychiatric unit.”
Judge Gold added: “You have already spent eight weeks in custody … I have to decide whether there is any purpose or public interest in sending you back into custody at this time.”
The judge said that he would normally impose an immediate custodial sentence for offences of this type.
For the three offences, he imposed prison sentences totalling 12 months, suspended for two years. He ordered Reed to attend 40 days of rehabilitation and carry out 150 hours of unpaid work.
Reed was also told that he would be on the sex offenders register for 10 years and, as a result, would not be allowed to work with children or vulnerable adults.
The judge added: “The reason is that you have heard the clang of the prison gates. A sentence that allows you back into the community is the more productive sentence.”
As the sentencing finished, Reed wiped tears from his eyes.
The complainants appeared to be disappointed with the outcome and with the evidence given during the trial by church leaders.
No records appear to have been kept about any complaints although the jury was told that the church had “notified their insurers and public relations advisers about this case during the police investigation”.
Having been present throughout the duration of this case, it seemed obvious to those who listened carefully that the defence through a clear manipulation of the evidence so as to fit their narrative, convinced the jury that one of the victims who claimed to be 15 in 1989 was in fact 16. The truth is, however, he was in fact only 16 for one month of the year as his birthdate was in late November. This means for 11 months of the year he was in fact 15. As the abuse of this victim happened over 10 months period in 1989 the conclusion has to be that he was just 15 years old which completely changes the landscape of the offence. I’m aware that every perpetrator is allowed proper defence, but in this case, his defence team has enabled a paedophile to walk free.
Hi Mark, I totally agree with everything you said, having been another victim is this trial.
The headline reads two young men abused. The jury upheld that one was an under the age of 16.
Hi Steve, I covered the trial and the sentencing. Daniel Reed was not found guilty of indecently assaulting anyone when they were under 16. At the sentencing yesterday, the judge said: “You were found guilty of three offences of indecent assault on males – not children – aged 16 or over.”
I was one of the victims in this case, Danny was found guilty of the charge against me. My recollection is that I was 15 at the time, but unfortunately I could not prove this and the defence argued that I was 16. At best I had just had my 16th birthday, and Danny was grooming me way before this, it is very clear when I look back on this and see how he trapped us into having sleepovers at his house on our own. Also, from the jury’s verdict, my understanding from the police was that he had been found guilty of sexual assault against a 15-year old, and I am very confused about the statement about us all being over 16. I accept that I may have got this wrong. I will check with the police and confirm this. I am very annoyed that it has been stretched as far as us being in our ‘late-teens’, the implication being that we were only a couple of years apart. This is just wrong. We were 15 or 16, he was 22, that is a big age gap at that age. I am also disgusted with the church leaders involved being more concerned about covering the reputation of the church than doing the right thing for vulnerable youth group members who were abused by their volunteers. They claimed to have no recollection of anything that had happened when giving evidence. This is totally crushing for someone who was a victim, the way the church in general treats victims is disgusting.
Sorry about the rant, but I am so frustrated and disappointed with how the fact that Danny was gay and confused has been used to justify what he did to us. What would the conversation now be if he had abused 15/16 year old girls? How is being gay relevant to what he did to us?
I will certainly confirm with the police whether he was found guilty of abusing a 15 year old by the jury, as it seems that I (and several others) thought that this was the case.
I’m so sorry for all you’ve endured and the way you’ve been let down by so many, and again now by the justice system. Your courage is immeasurable. I hope you have support around you, and please remember that there are more people out here who see the injustice and care about you.
This man abused my brother trust and got him to act out sexual acts!. My brother has lived with the shame and thoughts of what happened on the night he assaulted him for the last 35 years!!!! I don’t believe for one minute this was a one off! The church were made aware but swept it under the carpet. They did not check any of the details and ignored what had been happening. To make it worse they then pretended in court that they had now lost their memory and have no recollection of what happened!! These were leaders we all trusted!!!!!!
Danny Reed has not been punished at all. I’m
Sure prison was awful for him but that’s exactly what a pedophile deserves!!!!!!
Safeguarding may have been very different back then and thank goodness it’s so much better now. This man abused 4 teenagers and has only been found guilty for 2!
We will now support my brother as finally he’s been able to tell this awful secret!!!!!
Thanks Hannah ❤️
Still, 16 back then was under the age of consent, and it was a disturbing pattern, a few people. This judge was lenient in my own case, of sexual abuse a few years ago, I would like to say all you victims get together asap and launch an appeal on the unduly lenient sentence, it sends the wrong message if he gets a suspended sentence, you appeal to the attorney general, be fast, I was two days late for mine and they refused to even look at it even though the crown was meant to do it and not a victim.
So in 1994 the criminal order and public order act lowered the age of consent for gay men from 21 to 18. In 2001 it was lowered to 16.
Clearly this was a criminal offence whether they were 16 or not.
I have met one of this paedophile’s victims and I am aware of how his family was manipulated by the Church to protect him and the on going damage that this continues to have on his life
Weird this article is focused on him. Where are the victim impact statements. This report is very biased tbh.
Hi Daniel, I did provide a victim impact statement and I am told that the judge had this, but it was not read out in court at the sentencing. I’ve no idea why it was not read out though.
Thinking back, I think they kept ours from being read out also actually. But surely you were questioned in court and did an ABE video which would have been played, some of that could have been quoted, from your perspectives.
You would have been the first ones in court those first few days. Question did you go to court to see Daniel Reeds Cross Examination?
I really feel for you all, take care of yourselves, I hope you didn’t have the curtain pulled and faced him right down too!
I’m not sure what an ABE video is? I live in Australia now, so my evidence was given over video link. I did request a video link so I could see the rest of the trial and the other evidence given, but this was refused as the curt said it was too difficult to set up. Thankfully members of my family attended as much as they could. I really wish I’d been able to see the evidence, especially Danny Reed’s and the church leaders involved – I am told that one of them refused to swear on the Bible which is quite staggering. Mark may be able to confirm his if he was there? I requested an estimate for a transcription of the whole court hearing, but the estimate for this was £12000 so I was not able to do this.
Another side of this that has just been pointed out to me is how insulting it is to the LGBT community to link Danny’s abuse of boys to him being gay. I don’t think there is a single other LGBT person I know personally who has felt the need to abuse, groom, manipulate vulnerable boys into a situation where they are alone with them overnight and can sexually abuse them. It is not OK to abuse children whatever your sexual orientation. And I know the defence keeps saying young adults and ‘late-teens’ to somehow diminish what happened and make out we were Danny’s peers in some way, but my son is pretty much exactly the same age as me when this abuse took place – 15 going on 16 – and I do not think of him as a young adult in any way, he is still a child as far as I am concerned and not mature enough to make a consenting decision to let a 22 year old man abuse him.
Very sadly these issues were nothing but a smoke screen to cover up the evidence which was very clear. The defence often used the churches handling of Danny as the the reason for his actions, or it was because he encountered homophobic attitudes which left him with diminished responsibility. The defence did so well with this strategy, I felt sorry for him. I know for a fact the defence team were very concerned about the age of consent issue bordering on being very concerned that they had no defence if the age of consent was not clear and able to be proved. Age of consent was the foundation for their defence. It was clear as the nose on your face two of the victims were 15. If a visible time line had been entered into evidence for the prosecution, it would have been very hard for the defence to refute the evidence.
This is totally wrong and sends out the wrong message the about of damage this man has caused and the damage to the victims is for life and will stay with them for life and trust me these will not be the only 2 offences this man has committed there will be many more that are to scared or embarrassed to come forward hope this sentence is sent back to the home secretary for re sentencing this sends out the wrong message and this is why victims suffer in silence 🤐
Yes. To say that “as soon as they asked him to stop, he did” is a bold claim. That’s only as far as we know. By not reporting him to the police immediately, the church gave him over 30 years of freedom to do whatever he wanted with more children. (I use the term children because it’s obvious to everyone except this judge that they were in fact 15) If there were more victims over that time, I hope they feel brave enough to come forward. But with outcomes like this, it’s understandable they would be too afraid to.
Yes, this is a massive blow to the victims. To say that “when he was told to stop, he did” and that he has lived a blameless and unblemished life…that’s a bold claim. Who knows what he’s been up to. When the church decided not to report Danny to the police immediately, they gave him over 30 years of freedom to do whatever he wanted to more children. I say children because the victims claim they were 15 at the time, but unfortunately could not prove it. I hope that if there are more victims, they are brave enough to come forward now, although nobody could blame them if they didn’t, if this ends up being the outcome. What a huge disappointment.
This person (wouldn’t call him a human at all) has destroyed many innocent victims lives and been allowed to walk free! whilst the victims have to continue to live with this, they have been brave enough to give evidence and make this man stand trial. Absolutely no justification for the judge to allow this at all. Corruption at its finest. As for blaming his sexual orientation for this, absolutely no justification for this, Gay people do not go round assaulting young men experimenting! The 8 week stint in custody and suspended sentence is absolutely insulting to the victims and he is free to roam around to live his life on a SA register for the next 10 years and victims lives destroyed and their lives have never been the same since.
Religion is and always has been about having power over people. Some use it to control adults and some to fiddle with kids. All sickening
Certainly can be like that. I have still kept my faith over the years, but have found church a struggle. My experience with this court case and the cynical way church ‘leaders’ behaved has been the final nail in the coffin as far as church is concerned, has left me feeling quite sickened.
Thank you for your comment, however the church was not on trial, an individual who committed vial indecent acts against young defenceless boys was on trial, he was not coerced into these acts by the actions of the church. This sadly has become something of an unhelpful smoke screen to cover up the cold hard truth that an offence against 15 year old boys was committed by a twisted individual who has not expressed any remorse for his actions or acknowledged the harm he has caused these boys now men ever since. To blame the church or to make this about the gay community undermines and ignores the distress these people have gone through. It was this approach in court of blaming everyone else claiming the perpetrator was the victim that has brought about a miscarriage of justice.
So sad this comment. No acknowledgement of victims trauma. The route issue was this guy committed sexual acts against boys.
I am deeply saddened but not surprised at this story. Saddened by the shameful covering up of abusive behaviour. I was part of this international church, which I now view as a cult. There are other huge issues around controlling, misogynistic and homophobic beliefs that have never been confronted and done much damage to many. There was also an unhealthy obsession with demons and sexuality. It has a lot to answer for.
As a teenager I was a member of Clarendon Church later CCK now Emanuel. I have now moved away from faith and look back at these times with great concern. There were some great people in the church and youth group, but the doctrine was cruel to gay people and stopped women being leaders. I saw exorcisms by leaders which were their doctrinal fantasies and were very damaging. The church leaders dealt with very serious matters internally and not through the authorities. Maybe this has changed now? I note their new safeguarding and inclusion policies on their website. I would like to hear a statement from Emanuel church which expresses sorrow and learning and apologies to the victims. Also that they will never again use exorcisms on people. Also that they will welcome gay people and women into employment / leadership in the church? And that they will always report safeguarding matters to the police. If Emanuel does make this commitment then maybe it’s changed. But publishing new policies means nothing. I am so very sorry to read the pain of all involved…
Still nothing at all from Emmanuel church on this, it’s looking to me like they are going to completely ignore this, this is really disappointing behaviour. I am disgusted with them.
Extremely disappointing at the lack of apology from CCK/Emmanuel Church but not surprising as they’d be owning up to something I guess. I was also a member of New Frontiers and I know Mr Fellingham holds very strong ideas re homosexuals still, they all do. It’s a damaging organisation, spiritually abusive and they believe only certain people ‘hear’ from God. Terry Virgo is the founder and his son was leader of the Emmanuel Church. So sorry to the victims in this case, justice does not appear to have been done.
I finally managed to get a meeting with Emmanuel Church last week and they confirmed that they decided not to make any formal announcement or apology and they do not see a need for this. The priority is definitely the reputation of the church. I’ve given up trying to convince them to do the right thing, it’s so sad that they just don’t get it.
Howard,
Thats the least they could do, but they are probably following their lawyers advice and want to proect their reputation as you said, rather than doing the right thing. it sounds like you have had such a hard time through this all and i hope that you end up stronger for it. i would write what i think of them but this post wouldnt get through the moderation process.So… Muck’em.
Well, he certainly mucked up enough lives.
To all those on this post that were directly affected by dannys actions, my heart goes out to you for all that he put you through. I was not abused by him but i was part of the churches youth club and often went to dannys house for his famous parties. I was shocked to hear that some of those that attended were abused, but it does explain why he suddenly became persona non grata in the church, we even stopped singing his worship song.
Danny took advantage of his position and should have faced prison.
I must have known all those who he abused as we are of the same age when we attended Clarendon and the abuse was taking place, so to those that were affected im so cross that the church let you down.
I really appreciate that, SW, and I’m sure the other victims do too… It would be interesting to know who you are and whether i know you 🙂. If you are ok with getting in touch, maybe you can PM me on Messenger, https://www.facebook.com/HowardFoster123 , no pressure though