A vanished Central Criminal Court case in November 1916

[queencorgi1]

Ralph Lewis Gilburne Butler was charged with 'gross indecency' (homosexual acts) with Martin Rohan and appeared in the Westminster Police Court in September and October 1916. (I give his full name but he was apparently charged without his two middle names.) Butler had been a Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, before the war, and then served in the Corps of Interpreters until invalided out in 1915. He was employed in the Foreign Office in 1916. The case was sent up to the Old Bailey (Central Criminal Court) on 3 Nov 1916, but thereafter I can't find any more. After the war Butler continued to work as a translator and interpreter for the government and also published books on international topics.
Can anyone suggest what might have happened to the Old Bailey case?

[Bookbox]

The case was sent up to the Old Bailey (Central Criminal Court) on 3 Nov 1916

What is the source for this?

The after-trial calendar shows that he was tried at the County of London Sessions on 16 November 1916 and pleaded Guilty. He was ordered to enter into his own recognizance of £100, with two sureties (£100 each), to hear judgment if called upon within 12 months.

ADDED
If you've been looking for him in the Old Bailey Proceedings Online, it only goes up to 1913.

[queencorgi1]

Thank you so much for replying. I don't have any experience for investigating civil legal proceedings,  and someone else put me on to this case. They gave me the info about Old Bailey as I quoted it, so I just assumed it was correct.
Can you give me a citation for the after-trial calendar information? I'm confused by what it says. Does that mean that judgment wouldn't happen if Butler didn't hear anything within 12 months? He'd pleaded guilty, so surely he must have been liable to some punishment? As I'm sure you're aware at this time the maximum sentence was two years with hard labour, and I've had men with anything from 3 months to the full two years, with or without the hard labour. It seems very odd if Butler could just walk away?
Apologies for so many questions, but I'm just really puzzled!

[Bookbox]

The reference is National Archives, CRIM 9/62 (After-Trial Calendar of Prisoners, 1916). Some of these calendars can be found on FindMyPast.

It was a criminal case, not a civil one. The hearing may have been at the Old Bailey, but other courts were also used for the County of London Sessions.

I would have expected him to be recalled for sentencing. You may find something in the newspapers?

If not, you would have to pursue the case at the London Archives, which holds the actual court records for the County of London Sessions at this period.  They offer a paid research service, which is quite costly, or you could engage an independent researcher (probably cheaper).

https://www.thelondonarchives.org/our-services/paid-document-research-service

[hanes teulu]

There's a very lengthy report in the Westminster and Pimlico News, 6 Oct 1916 about a court appearance which concluded
"On this evidence the prisoner was again remanded on bail"

Earlier, on Sep 22 he has been remanded on £300 bail

[AntonyMMM]

The "sentence" was effectively that he was required/promised to be of good behaviour for  12 months - if he offended again in that period he would be liable to pay £100 ( as would his sureties) and he could be sentenced for the original offence.

Interesting that the following year ( Oct 1917) the other party, Martin Rohan, was sentenced to 6 months in prison for "importuning male persons for an immoral purpose" and was noted to have previous convictions for the same.

[queencorgi1]

Thank you all for replying. I'm most grateful.

Both the Westminster & Pimlico News and the Chelsea News reported on the original court hearings with plenty of detail, should someone come across this thread in the future and want to check them out.
 
I was very interested but surprised to hear from AntonyMMM that the sentence was simply to be 'of good behaviour' for a year. This seems remarkably lenient in comparison with other cases I've researched.

[Andy J2022]

If he had been of previous good character and had some respected people (for instance from his time at university and in the Army) prepared to vouch for his good character, this could well have swayed the court to be lenient. Furthermore we know nothing specific about the incident. If the evidence showed strong mitigation in the case of Butler - perhaps that Martin Rohan was the instigator (possibly he was the older man) and Butler was a naive 'victim' of the former's overbearing advances - I could see a suspended sentence being an option for the court. Clearly, if you are able to get hold of the written judgment, as Bookbox has suggested, this would fill in the details about why that sentence was considered appropriate. I think that the mere fact that judgment was reserved at the main hearing (when the judge would have formally found him guilty) suggests that there might have been other factors for the court to consider.

[queencorgi1]

Thank you for contributing. The newspaper reports state that Butler booked the rooms on the several occasions when he and Rohan met, and he was the older, so I don't think he would have been seen as a naive victim.