Court convicts man of sexual touching after incident involving three-year-old on bus

Man 'fanatically obsessed' with girls as young as three

Man 'fanatically obsessed' with girls as young as three

First published in News
Last updated
Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by

A man with a “fanatical obsession” with small girls targeted a three-year-old child on a bus, a court heard.

Stephen Munden deliberately sat near the child and stroked her hand with his finger – in full view of the girl’s mother and grandmother.

Munden, formerly of Brittany Gardens in Marchwood, was subsequently convicted of sexually touching a child under the age of 13.

The 53-year-old had denied the offence, claiming the touching was accidental.

Appearing at Southampton Crown Court for sentencing, Munden heard David Jenkins, prosecuting, tell Judge Peter Henry that the defendant had admitted ten unrelated offences of possessing or attempting to possess indecent images of children.

The defendant was arrested after using one of the public computers at Hythe library in an attempt to download images, the court heard.

Mr Jenkins said children’s clothes, books and dolls were found at Munden’s home and added: “He has a fanatical obsession with young girls.”

Consultant physiatrist John O’Shea said the defendant was autistic and also suffered from mild learning difficulties.

He had difficulty controlling his sexual interest in small children but the girl on the bus was probably unaware of his intentions, said Mr O’Shea.

Keely Harvey, in mitigation, added: “He did not accept that he deliberately touched the child’s hand.”

But the judge said: “The move from non-contact offences to a contact offence is significant.”

Munden was made the subject of a hospital order and detained under the Mental Health Act.

Comments (13)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:05am Thu 21 Aug 14

Hastagger says...

Sick - lock him up forever. Before any do gooders get on here talking about his illness, think about the poor children!
Sick - lock him up forever. Before any do gooders get on here talking about his illness, think about the poor children! Hastagger
  • Score: 11

11:55am Thu 21 Aug 14

SwedeSaint says...

Hastagger wrote:
Sick - lock him up forever. Before any do gooders get on here talking about his illness, think about the poor children!
So you have to be a 'do-gooder to accept that he has a mental illness.
[quote][p][bold]Hastagger[/bold] wrote: Sick - lock him up forever. Before any do gooders get on here talking about his illness, think about the poor children![/p][/quote]So you have to be a 'do-gooder to accept that he has a mental illness. SwedeSaint
  • Score: 10

1:30pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Outside of the Box says...

Hastagger wrote:
Sick - lock him up forever. Before any do gooders get on here talking about his illness, think about the poor children!
This man has the mental age of a 7 year old, that's why he's subject to a hospital order and not prison, he will be kept in hospital until he's deemed fit to return to society which in case will almost certainly mean forever.

I am not supporting him or am I trying to justify what he did, but his mental age was said in open court, but the Echo fail to report that.

Of course children need protecting at all times and people like him need to be kept away from children, prison is not the place for him, hospital however is.
[quote][p][bold]Hastagger[/bold] wrote: Sick - lock him up forever. Before any do gooders get on here talking about his illness, think about the poor children![/p][/quote]This man has the mental age of a 7 year old, that's why he's subject to a hospital order and not prison, he will be kept in hospital until he's deemed fit to return to society which in case will almost certainly mean forever. I am not supporting him or am I trying to justify what he did, but his mental age was said in open court, but the Echo fail to report that. Of course children need protecting at all times and people like him need to be kept away from children, prison is not the place for him, hospital however is. Outside of the Box
  • Score: 28

2:04pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Hastagger says...

Outside of the Box wrote:
Hastagger wrote:
Sick - lock him up forever. Before any do gooders get on here talking about his illness, think about the poor children!
This man has the mental age of a 7 year old, that's why he's subject to a hospital order and not prison, he will be kept in hospital until he's deemed fit to return to society which in case will almost certainly mean forever.

I am not supporting him or am I trying to justify what he did, but his mental age was said in open court, but the Echo fail to report that.

Of course children need protecting at all times and people like him need to be kept away from children, prison is not the place for him, hospital however is.
I didn't say prison. I said lock him up. Which they have done.
[quote][p][bold]Outside of the Box[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hastagger[/bold] wrote: Sick - lock him up forever. Before any do gooders get on here talking about his illness, think about the poor children![/p][/quote]This man has the mental age of a 7 year old, that's why he's subject to a hospital order and not prison, he will be kept in hospital until he's deemed fit to return to society which in case will almost certainly mean forever. I am not supporting him or am I trying to justify what he did, but his mental age was said in open court, but the Echo fail to report that. Of course children need protecting at all times and people like him need to be kept away from children, prison is not the place for him, hospital however is.[/p][/quote]I didn't say prison. I said lock him up. Which they have done. Hastagger
  • Score: 4

2:05pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Hastagger says...

SwedeSaint wrote:
Hastagger wrote:
Sick - lock him up forever. Before any do gooders get on here talking about his illness, think about the poor children!
So you have to be a 'do-gooder to accept that he has a mental illness.
No, of course you don't, but too often we see the perpetrators 'illness' or upbringing as a reason for not punishing them and the real victim is forgotten.
[quote][p][bold]SwedeSaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hastagger[/bold] wrote: Sick - lock him up forever. Before any do gooders get on here talking about his illness, think about the poor children![/p][/quote]So you have to be a 'do-gooder to accept that he has a mental illness.[/p][/quote]No, of course you don't, but too often we see the perpetrators 'illness' or upbringing as a reason for not punishing them and the real victim is forgotten. Hastagger
  • Score: 4

3:24pm Thu 21 Aug 14

bobby the crane says...

Cyanide the **** save the state some money
Cyanide the **** save the state some money bobby the crane
  • Score: -5

3:47pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Brock_and_Roll says...

bobby the crane wrote:
Cyanide the **** save the state some money
Really? Just shows the level to which comments here have frequently stooped.

What you are saying is that the penalty for touching a young girls hand is death.......

Clearly the offender has mental health issues which will be dealt with but to equate this with murderers and rapists is ridiculous.
[quote][p][bold]bobby the crane[/bold] wrote: Cyanide the **** save the state some money[/p][/quote]Really? Just shows the level to which comments here have frequently stooped. What you are saying is that the penalty for touching a young girls hand is death....... Clearly the offender has mental health issues which will be dealt with but to equate this with murderers and rapists is ridiculous. Brock_and_Roll
  • Score: 9

4:12pm Thu 21 Aug 14

normal1965 says...

life is to good for him
life is to good for him normal1965
  • Score: -3

4:45pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Mary80 says...

I really get angry when people try to use autism as a blank cheque for bad behaviour.
I really get angry when people try to use autism as a blank cheque for bad behaviour. Mary80
  • Score: 1

4:47pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Fiedlmouse98 says...

This person sounds like he has problems. But how is touching someone's hand, even a child's, a sexual offence. Does this mean that if a child wants to hold your hand you must refuse. Sounds a bit strange.
This person sounds like he has problems. But how is touching someone's hand, even a child's, a sexual offence. Does this mean that if a child wants to hold your hand you must refuse. Sounds a bit strange. Fiedlmouse98
  • Score: 2

5:10pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Symnz says...

Fiedlmouse98 wrote:
This person sounds like he has problems. But how is touching someone's hand, even a child's, a sexual offence. Does this mean that if a child wants to hold your hand you must refuse. Sounds a bit strange.
As with any 'story' in the paper, they never include all the details. Only the ones that makes it 'interesting'.
[quote][p][bold]Fiedlmouse98[/bold] wrote: This person sounds like he has problems. But how is touching someone's hand, even a child's, a sexual offence. Does this mean that if a child wants to hold your hand you must refuse. Sounds a bit strange.[/p][/quote]As with any 'story' in the paper, they never include all the details. Only the ones that makes it 'interesting'. Symnz
  • Score: 2

5:21pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Ultra Vires says...

Fiedlmouse98 wrote:
This person sounds like he has problems. But how is touching someone's hand, even a child's, a sexual offence. Does this mean that if a child wants to hold your hand you must refuse. Sounds a bit strange.
If you touch someone, and the intention was to gain sexual gratification from doing so (without their permission), that becomes a sexual offence.

That is what the trail was all about, in which he was found guilty.
[quote][p][bold]Fiedlmouse98[/bold] wrote: This person sounds like he has problems. But how is touching someone's hand, even a child's, a sexual offence. Does this mean that if a child wants to hold your hand you must refuse. Sounds a bit strange.[/p][/quote]If you touch someone, and the intention was to gain sexual gratification from doing so (without their permission), that becomes a sexual offence. That is what the trail was all about, in which he was found guilty. Ultra Vires
  • Score: 4

6:39pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Lord Palmerstone says...

Ultra Vires wrote:
Fiedlmouse98 wrote:
This person sounds like he has problems. But how is touching someone's hand, even a child's, a sexual offence. Does this mean that if a child wants to hold your hand you must refuse. Sounds a bit strange.
If you touch someone, and the intention was to gain sexual gratification from doing so (without their permission), that becomes a sexual offence.

That is what the trail was all about, in which he was found guilty.
Yep-or to put it more succinctly , it was one of tens of thousands of "new crimes" made by Blunkett when he was in Kimberley Quinn mode.
[quote][p][bold]Ultra Vires[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fiedlmouse98[/bold] wrote: This person sounds like he has problems. But how is touching someone's hand, even a child's, a sexual offence. Does this mean that if a child wants to hold your hand you must refuse. Sounds a bit strange.[/p][/quote]If you touch someone, and the intention was to gain sexual gratification from doing so (without their permission), that becomes a sexual offence. That is what the trail was all about, in which he was found guilty.[/p][/quote]Yep-or to put it more succinctly , it was one of tens of thousands of "new crimes" made by Blunkett when he was in Kimberley Quinn mode. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: -3

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree