The 85-year-old has reportedly fallen ill after gorging on chocolate and sweets in jail.Read the full story ›
A leaked prison letter written by convicted paedophile Rolf Harris appears to show the disgraced entertainer attacking his victims.Read the full story ›
Disgraced former children's entertainer Rolf Harris has been stripped of his CBE, according to an official announcement in the London Gazette.
Harris was jailed for five years and nine months for indecently assaulting four girls over a near 20-year period.
Last month Harris was stripped of honours bestowed by Australia, namely the appointments of Officer and Member of the Order of Australia in the General Division.
Australia has stripped disgraced entertainer Rolf Harris of his honours bestowed by the country after he was convicted for child sex offences last year.
A statement from the Australian government said the Governor-General had terminated 'the appointments of Officer and Member of the Order of Australia in the General Division' made to Rolf Harris, on 19th February.
Rolf Harris has applied to appeal his indecent assault convictions, just one month after being found guilty of a string of charges, including against his daughter's best friend.
A court must now decide whether to grant the disgraced 84 year old entertainer permission to continue with the appeal. ITV News Correspondent Juliet Bremner reports.
Rolf Harris' victims see his guilty verdict and being believed as a form of justice after the Attorney General decided not to contest the disgraced entertainer's sentence, a child protection expert told Good Morning Britain.
Head of Child Protection Operations for the NSPCC, John Cameron, said despite the controversial sentence Rolf Harris received, his victims had some hope of closure because they had been believed.
One of Rolf Harris' victims expressed her anger over his sentence for sex crimes and described the length of time the disgraced children's entertainer will serve as "an insult".
The woman, who was abused by Harris when she was a small child, told Good Morning Britain the Attorney General's decision not to review the sentence of five years and nine months "sent out the wrong signals".
A victim who gave evidence against Rolf Harris in the case that led to him being jailed for five year and nine month for sex offences has told ITV News that even if the disgraced entertainer died in prison it would not be enough. Her comments come after the Attorney General's office said that his sentence would not be referred to the Court of Appeal for being unduly lenient.
Part of me just wants him to stay in jail and never come out because even if he stayed in jail until he died, it wouldn't make up for the years and years that all the women - not just all the ones that gave evidence but I am sure other ones - have gone through. I think in no way does the sentence reflect the gravity of the crimes.
The Attorney General decided not to refer Rolf Harris' sentence to the Court of Appeal because there were several reasons the original sentence would not be considered "unduly lenient".
The entertainer's age was one of the factors that influenced his sentence of five years and nine months for 12 counts of indecent assault.
A spokeswoman said the judge in the case also had to sentence Harris based on the maximum punishment available at the time of the offences.
It was also not possible to "simply add up sentences on individual counts" to reach a longer sentence, she explained.
"The overall sentence had to be just and proportionate to the overall offending," the spokeswoman added.
Rolf Harris' prison term will not be increased after the Attorney General decided not to refer his sentence to the Court of Appeal.
Jeremy Wright decided against the move as he felt judges would not increase Harris' jail term.
The case was referred after numerous complaints that the five years and nine month sentence against the 84-year old entertainer did not reflect the severity of his crimes.
A spokesperson for Mr Wright said: “The Attorney General understands that his decision not to refer the case may be a disappointment to some people; however, he did give extremely careful consideration to this sentence and he concluded that he could not refer it.”
Although the Attorney General does have the power to refer sentences to the Court of Appeal there is a high threshold that means the original sentence must be well below what the judge could reasonably have handed down.