Man convicted of asking girls for oral sex

Rosie Mullaley
Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

Richard Fitzpatrick appeared in provincial court in St. John's today, to plead guilty to soliciting sexual favours from teenage girls.

A St. John’s man who propositioned three young teenaged girls for oral sex in a schoolyard has been given a conditional sentence.

Richard Fitzpatrick pleaded guilty to soliciting sexual favours.

Judge David Power agreed to a 30-day conditional sentence and nine months’ probation, which had been suggested by Crown prosecutor Dana Sullivan and defence lawyer Averill Baker.

Sullivan withdrew five other charges relating to the girls’ ages.

On Feb. 2, 2010, Fitzpatrick approached three girls ages 13, 14, and 15 in the Holy Cross Junior High school parking lot on Ricketts Road and offered them $40 for oral sex. The girls refused and told their principal, who contacted the police.

During the sentencing hearing today at provincial court in St. John’s, Baker described the charge as the “least serious offence” in the Criminal Code of Canada — a contention the judge said was debatable.

Baker acknowledged that Fitzpatrick has a lengthy criminal record but said he has taken steps to turn his life around.

Letters from a psychologist and director of the Brother T.I. Murphy Learning Centre, the alternative school where Fitzpatrick finished his education, stated that he’s made great strides in improving his life, and says he was the product of an abusive upbringing.

According to the conditions of Fitzpatrick’s sentence and probation, he must have no contact with the girls and has to stay away from all junior high and high schools in the province.

He’s subject to a curfew and must abstain from alcohol and drugs.

Geographic location: Ricketts Road, Canada

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page



Recent comments

    January 19, 2011 - 06:37

    A cursory search of the Dept of Justice website garnered me this piece of information: Procuring (sections 170, 171, 212(2), 212(2.1) and 212(4) - It is also against the law for anyone to offer or obtain the sexual services of a young person under the age of 18 years (i.e., prostitution). The penalties for these offences are mandatory minimum periods of imprisonment and vary up to a maximum of 14 years imprisonment; So if he had gotten the sex and paid for it we could have locked his deviant ass away for quite some time... yet showing willingness to do just that but the girls being smart enough to get the hell away from him and its basically a free pass???!!! Seriously?!! This is why people don't trust the quote-unquote Justice system.

  • Teenagegirlsmom
    January 18, 2011 - 22:22

    I can truly say that if anyone approached my teenage daughter and asked this, I would not consider it a "nuisance crime". This is where the public, especially schools, should be notified and behaviour such as this made known. Whatever steps need to be taken to keep our children safe should be implemented. I can only hope that this individual does turn his life around down the road, because it's apparent that it hasn't happened yet. What a sick, sick man! Maybe the Judge needs to think how he would feel if it was his child, would he consider it the same type of crime then? Luckily no one was harmed this time, but who's to say the next time this man approaches another child it will end the same way. Maybe it has come time for our school grounds to be fenced to keep intruders (and would be sex addicts) away from our children... just a thought for our next government!

  • Rosa
    January 18, 2011 - 21:30

    This story just makes me so sick. These predators are allowed to walk free, and believeme, it doesn't matter what conditions are imposed on this waste of skin, he is still walking free. I am a mother, I am offended by the judicial system,orf lack thereof, in our province. Our children need to be protected from these lowlifes. If you are into child porn, approach a child for sex, hell, the judges just give them a slap on the wrist. What the hell, what are you people thinking. No, please don't answer because it may make me more ill.

  • Charlene
    January 18, 2011 - 17:48

    In court today - his behaviour was referred to a "nuisance crime" - SERIOUSLY??? And the darling - with the exception of this incident - has been crime free for 5 years. Big wup! As if that should make a difference. He was charged with 6 count them now 6 offences thanks to RNC. And thanks to the rocket scientist lawyers who wheel and deal, he walks with one charge. Amazing - society craps on police for not doing enough. And yet every attempt to do so on their part to rid our strrets of crime gets squashed in the courtroom --- how do those DOJ sleep at night. Time for someone to grow a pair and hold criminals RESPONSIBLE for their actions. Stop with the excuses already!!!

  • Cynic
    January 18, 2011 - 17:45

    There is nothing new here is there? This is disgusting and the judge and defense attorney are a disgrace. I think that the parents and school board need to take this matter higher than the provincial court, this is clearly a case of attempted child abuse. What if this monster decided he didn't like the word 'no' and attempted to abduct one of these children? The fact is that parents at this school as well as throughout the eastern school district should be raising hell about this and applying pressure to have this case reviewed as well as petitioning for a law to be passed that anyone who does this on Elementary, middle school and high school property is automatically charged with child luring and attempted sexual abuse of a minor.

  • Anon
    January 18, 2011 - 17:18

    I know you all don't want to hear this, but from a legal perspective I can understand Ms. Baker's argument. He didn't actually assault the girls. It also isn't illegal to pay for sex, and up until two years ago the age of consent in Canada was 14. That said, I still think the guy is a jerk.

  • concernedmama
    January 18, 2011 - 16:29

    If the young girls approached by this deviant were that judge's daughters, this would be a story with a very different outcome. Shame on you David Power.

  • Bonnie
    January 18, 2011 - 14:12

    Slap on the this won't be the last time Fitzpatrick is in court. If this is justice, it's pathetic!!

  • Michael
    January 18, 2011 - 13:39

    Is it Fitzpatrick or Fitzgerald? The second last paragragh refers to Fitzgerald not Fitzpatrick.

    • Pam Frampton
      January 18, 2011 - 13:56

      Sorry about the initial Fitzgerald error. Our web story has been corrected.

  • Elizabeth
    January 18, 2011 - 13:35

    What in the name of God is that Judge thinking???

  • Jim
    January 18, 2011 - 13:20

    Unbelievable. Not even jail time - he is not a first time offender so what is with the leniency?? A few cod fish would net you more of a punishment than this. He should be in jail and be the one getting solicited.

  • turry from town
    January 18, 2011 - 12:19

    send him back to where he came from,we don't want that type here.

    • David Snow
      January 18, 2011 - 23:45

      He was born in St. John's...

  • Newfiegal
    January 18, 2011 - 12:13

    He walks up to these girls and asks them to give him oral sex for money and he gets a 30-day conditional sentence and nine months probation???? Are you SERIOUS? And as for his abusive upbringing, who cares? I had and I know others who have bad childhoods and have been physically/mentally or sexually abused but they don't go around soliciting kids for sexual favors or any other kind of illegal activities! It drives me insane when you read about something like this in the paper and it always usually states that the person being tried had an "abusive" childhood. What are they trying to do get the public to take pity on them? Well heres one person who won't. This article physically made me want to puke! CONGRATS to those girls also who had the sense to walk back into the school and inform their principle. He should have gotten a lengthier time in prison, but then again being out on probation out in the public might be the best thing. It shouldn't matter what anyone's childhood was like, once you become an adult you have to be the one to make changes to make sure that you or your childrens lives or any childrens lives don't end up the same way. And if you want to go around being an idiot ruining your life don't use the excuse that you were abused or molested or just had a crappy childhood, I for one won't take pity on you.

    • Newfiegal
      January 18, 2011 - 14:37

      Just showed this article to my daughters, so if they ever saw this man coming their way they are told to run and scream and shout as loud as they can to protect themselves (hard to call him a man but can't call him anything else or my post won't get posted), but in reading it to them I read the date again, Feb 2, 2010----2010??? Why wasn't the public made known about this individual before now?? Why wasn't anything sent from the school board to parents advising us to beware of him?? My own daughters go to the elementary school in that area! Was it to protect his privacy until his hearing? SICK SICK SICK....believe me if this man or any person approached my girls to try and do them any harm, the entire city would know about it way before a court hearing!

  • Donnie
    January 18, 2011 - 12:11

    ship em out of the city, he is a waste of space and dont deserve to breathe our air, send him to europe somewhere

    • Lord Beaverbrook
      January 18, 2011 - 14:44

      Insightful and deep comment Donnie - if only we could send all cretins away...

  • William Murphy
    January 18, 2011 - 10:33

    Get him off the island!

    • scliplooon
      January 18, 2011 - 11:23

      Jr high and high schools!!! keep him away from primary and elementary too. Wicked... he has a lengthy criminal record but has taken steps to turn his life around....LOOKS LIKE IT!!!