A Bath carer, jailed for assaulting a dementia sufferer he 'misguidedly' tried to help when she got into difficulty, has been freed by top judges on appeal.
London's Criminal Appeal Court heard John Morgan performed an out-dated intimate procedure on the woman, a resident at the care home where he worked, in a 'grossly insensitive and misconceived' attempt to help her.
The 61-year-old, of Wellsway, Bath, was jailed for four months at Bristol Crown Court in June after admitting common assault.
But he was today released from prison by judges sitting at London's Criminal Appeal Court, who said the sentence was 'too severe' for his crime.
The court heard Morgan was a senior carer at a residential home when the incident happened in May 2013.
After discovering an elderly resident, who suffered with dementia and was unable to communicate, was in difficulty, Morgan went to her room and performed the procedure in a bid to help her.
The court heard the procedure was 'out-dated', had not been used at the care home in many years, and Morgan had not been trained in it.
As a result of his actions, the woman became extremely distressed and an ambulance was called, although she had calmed down by the time paramedics arrived.
A probation officer concluded Morgan, who had an unblemished record as a carer over many years and who also looked after his disabled wife, was 'low risk' and suggested a community punishment.
But the crown court judge said that, in light of the vulnerability of the victim, only a custodial sentence would suffice.
Morgan's lawyers challenged his jail term, arguing the judge ignored the absence of any malice or intention to harm the victim, as well as his genuine - albeit misplaced - attempt to help the woman.
They also said the judge didn't take enough account of his previous good character, his work record and his responsibilities as a carer for his wife.
Allowing the appeal, Judge John Bevan QC said the original sentence was 'excessive' and reduced it to two months so Morgan would be freed immediately.
Sitting with Lord Justice Treacy and Mrs Justice Laing, he added: "Here, the offence was not committed to punish, but to assist - however misconceived that intention might have been.
"The sentence failed to give credit for any of the mitigation and in our judgment, it should have done. The resulting penalty is too severe and is manifestly excessive.
"With the passage of time, it seems to us that the proper course for this instance of gross insensitivity is to achieve his release today."
