Rapist not jailed because of dementia

Care home resident Verley Gordon struck after spotting his victim looking for her bus pass and asked her "to go for a walk".

When she tried to rebuff his advances he insisted she had "a lovely body" and then followed her as she walked off.

But London's Southwark Crown Court was told after pursuing her through the broken gate of a derelict house, he grabbed the "terrified" woman and pushed her to the ground as he began undoing her trousers.

The defendant - who was 67 at the time of the alleged attack in 1993 - ignored her tears and told her to stop screaming for the police as there was "no one to hear you".

The woman, a year younger than him, "was scared he might try to bite her," Michael Mulkerrins, prosecuting, told the court.

In the event "he tried to kiss her" instead and "was terrified she might get Aids."

The barrister said after raping her he tried again to have sex with the "sobbing woman" before eventually walking off.

The court heard after she had cleaned herself up, she went to nearby Brixton police station, and told officers of her ordeal at the hands of a man who "wore lots of rings ... and a gold wristwatch".

Although a DNA sample was retrieved at the time, it was not until autumn 2006 - after Gordon was cautioned for attacking a fellow care home resident - that a match with the defendant was finally obtained.

Gordon, who now has "limited understanding" of events and lives in a nursing home in Wandsworth, south west London, was not fit to plead to charges of rape and attempted rape on June 26, 1993.

Instead those trying him during his trial last December were asked to decide whether "he did the act" in respect of both counts.

Because of his condition he was unable to give evidence, but Robin Sellers, defending, reminded the court that when interviewed his client had insisted: "It wasn't me. I wasn't there. I don't know that woman."

In the event jurors took just three hours to decide Gordon was responsible.

Judge John Price told them: "I have never done a case like this before. It's fascinating. Because of his dementia you weren't being asked to find if he was guilty, but whether he did the act.

"In normal circumstances he would have been put away for a very long time but with his dementia it would be pointless to lock him up."

Imposing a two-year supervision order, he said: "I have limited options, one of them being - and I am absolutely convinced this is the proper one - is a supervision order."