UK - Former Metropolitan police officer (Philip James Gaisford) charged with 20 sex offences in Caterham and Crowborough

Philip James Gaisford

Original Article

09/07/2012

A former chief superintendent has been charged with a string of sex offences in the Caterham area.

Philip James Gaisford, 63, from Crowborough in East Sussex, appeared before Brighton magistrates on Wednesday last week.

He faces 20 sex crime charges said to have taken place between 1996 and 2007 in Caterham and also in Crowborough.

Described as an educational instructor by Sussex Police, he also faces one offence of intending to pervert the course of justice in Crowborough this year.

He was remanded in custody and is due to appear before a judge at Lewes Crown Court on November 7.

He is charged with:

• Seven counts of indecent assault on a boy under 16 in Caterham between 1996 and 1999.
• The rape of an adult woman in Caterham between 1998 and 2000.
• Two offences of indecent assault on a 16-year-old boy in Caterham in 2000.
• Three offences against a 15-year-old boy in Crowborough in 2003 and 2004 – one indecent assault, one incitement to commit an act of gross indecency, and one offence of gross indecency.
• Seven charges involving a 15-year-old boy in Crowborough during 2006 and 2007 – four offences of penetrative sexual activity, two of non-penetrative sexual activity and one of rape.

Mr Gaisford was charged with the offences on Tuesday last week after an investigation by detectives in East Sussex.

The defendant served with the Metropolitan Police for more than 20 years, including a spell in London's Soho and Shepherd's Market areas.

He has run his own scuba diving business since 1999.

Mr Gaisford made press headlines back in 2010 when he became embroiled in a dispute at Redhill County Court with a former long-standing friend Chris Upton, from Limpsfield.

Mr Gaisford lodged a civil claim for damages after Mr Upton's son crashed Mr Gaisford's Land Rover into a road sign.It emerged in the hearing that Mr Upton's son had insurance cover only as a named driver on his father's car but Mr Gaisford was not awarded any money by the court.

---