The vicar was found guilty of historic sexual offenses against the choir

A vicar has been found guilty of historic sex offenses against a chorister.

John Roberts was on trial at Liverpool Crown Court accused of “misusing the power and authority of his position to commit acts of sexual abuse” while serving as priest at St Peter’s Church in St Helens in the 1970s. The 89-year-old for years he allegedly tried to grope the boy in the parish and during a trip.

He too was unanimously convicted of five counts of indecent assault by a jury this afternoon, Wednesday. Roberts was absent from the prosecution when the verdict was handed down, having been allowed to watch proceedings remotely from HMP Liverpool – where he is currently serving a nine-year sentence for similar offenses – due to ill health.

READ MORE: Child rapist shakes his head as judge sentences him for sick attacks on girl

READ MORE: The pedophile secretly filmed naked young girls

He will be sentenced tomorrow afternoon, Thursday. Judge Robert Trevor-Jones, who presided over the trial, told jurors: “Members of the jury, thank you very much for your careful consideration of the case.

“I will sentence the defendant tomorrow afternoon. That will be in addition to the sentence he is currently serving.”

Steven Ball previously told a jury of four men and eight women during the opening of the prosecution last week that the plaintiff, who was aged between 10 and 13 at the time, and his family were “very involved” in the church and “would attend regularly” and “pray every night at the bedside.” The youngster was said to be “in awe” of Roberts when he arrived as the new vicar, describing him as having a “posh accent” and a “dynamic and engaging personality”.

He joined the choir following an effort to recruit the defendant and they subsequently came into contact on “numerous occasions”, including one where the schoolboy was invited alone to the rectory. When he left, he was said to have been given a “very, very long hug” that left him feeling “uncomfortable” and “a bit confused”.

The vicar later began kissing the boy after “hugging him in the same way you would hug your partner”, an incident which became a “repeated pattern of abuse”. The complainant recounted how he would “distract himself by thinking about other things” when this happened.

However, Roberts told jurors during his testimony that he had “no recollection at all” of inviting the boy to the rectory, adding: “I can’t think of a reason (to invite him). I’m not sure I ever invited him. “

His barrister Steven Swift told him: “(The complainant) alleges that during the indictment period there were occasions in the study, in the parlor and in the vestry of the church and there is reference to being given a lift. and at home, because you were kissing him.”

Roberts said in the witness box: “No. I didn’t do it.”

Mr. Swift continued: “Has anything of the kind ever happened?”

Roberts replied, “No. He didn’t.”

He and the boy were later said to have stayed in the same room together during a trip, during which the priest touched his groin over his clothes while the boy was lying on his back. He responded by pushing the vicar’s hand away.

However, Roberts was said to have remained “undaunted” and allegedly tried to grope him again during another incident at the vicarage, but was similarly rebuffed. Then they would be “hugging and kissing” during another night.

Jurors also heard another boy had “remarkably similar experiences to the defendant”, which led to his conviction on two counts of indecent assault in the late 1980s. Mr Ball highlighted how a previous trial Liverpool Magistrates’ Court heard the teenager was forced to do voluntary work at St Peter’s Church in Woolton, where Roberts was “resident priest”, after stealing money from the collection.

The young man then visited him “every Saturday”, which the vicar hugged, “stroked his face”, “rubbed his hands on his thighs”, told him “I love you” and on one occasion said: “You don’t get enough hugs It’s nice to be hugged and it’s nice to be kissed on the cheek.”

Roberts was said to have given the boy a timer and paid for him to go on a school trip before an incident in which they were both alone in a room that was used for choir practice. There, he is said to have unzipped the teenager’s trousers and performed a sexual act on him.

The vicar then stopped after asking, “Are you okay? Are not you happy?”

Roberts was then said to have told him to sit down and began kissing him before “grabbing his hand” and “trying to make him rub his cock”. Asked on Thursday why he did not appeal that conviction, he told the court: “I didn’t want to put my family through this again.

“I had an inkling that I was going to get my job back no matter what and that was all I cared about apart from my family. I was advised that it would probably be better not to appeal.”

Roberts said he was suspended for “about six weeks” before being reinstated. Mr Swift asked him: “Do you maintain your innocence of these charges?”

He replied, “Yes.”

Mr Ball told the cross-examination that this conviction resulted in him being fined £500, adding: “A man of means like you, with your second home in the Lake District and your church salary. That was nothing but a slap. the wrist.”

Roberts replied: “I wouldn’t call myself a man of means, I had no means. I didn’t pay it.”

Mr Ball continued: “You spoke to other people in the church, the people at the top, and they told you to leave it behind. They allowed you to continue your work as a vicar”.

Roberts said, “Yes.”

Mr Ball told him: “It was a case of less said, sooner rather than later. It is not like that?

Roberts replied, “I don’t know.”

Mr Ball: “Those convictions were based on true evidence given against you by (the claimant). That’s the truth, isn’t it?”

Roberts: “Based on what he said.”

Mr Ball: “He told the court you put your tongue in your mouth, pulled his penis out of his trousers and started masturbating. Because that’s what you did.”

Roberts: “No. I didn’t do anything like that at all.”

Mr Ball: “I suggest that (the plaintiff in the present suit) had not removed your wandering hand, that would have progressed. You would have taken his penis out of his pants and masturbated him.

– This is the truth. It is not like that?

Roberts: “No, I wouldn’t. I haven’t and I wouldn’t.”

Mr. Ball: “I’m suggesting he wasn’t lying about you. You had all these opportunities alone with him and you behaved inappropriately by kissing and groping him.

“That’s the truth, isn’t it?” He told the truth about you, didn’t he?

Roberts: “No.”

Mr Ball: ‘I suggest you deny your behaviour. You were then and you are now.”

Roberts: “No. I’m not in denial.”

Mr Swift then asked in cross-examination if he had ever taken the boy to the place where he was accused of groping him. Roberts said, “No, I didn’t.”

When asked if he stayed overnight with the boy in the second area in question, he claimed they were only on day trips there. Mr. Swift concluded his question by saying, “He was said to have told the truth about you.”

Roberts replied, “No. I don’t know where he got everything from”.

Don’t miss the biggest and breaking stories by subscribing to the Echo Daily newsletter here