A former Catholic priest has been found guilty of three counts of committing acts of gross indecency towards a child to satisfy his “foot fetish”.

After a seven-day trial and around six hours of deliberation, a jury found that Piotr Antoni Glas (61) had abused a child by holding his face to the child’s feet while masturbating on a number of occasions.

He was also found to have play-wrestled the child, pinning them down, and trapping their head against what the victim described as his “semi-erect” penis, the child’s feet against the priest’s face. 

Glas is known as Peter when his name is anglicised.

Jurors acquitted him of two other charges, two fell away, and three more charges were thrown out by the court earlier in the trial.

Crown Advocate Carla Carvalho, prosecuting, said the priest had spent a long time grooming the child before the offences started.

Glas had invited the child to walk on his back, saying this would help with back pain, and when this was normalised, he invited the child to walk on his front and to kick his face.

The victim described in court how this had made them “uncomfortable” but they complied.

Following the verdict, Detective Constable Caroline Foord, the officer in charge of the investigation, said: “This case highlights the serious nature of an abuse of authority and the importance of holding individuals accountable for their actions, regardless of their position or standing in the community or when the offences were committed. 

“Glas used his position, as an influential member of the Catholic clergy, to groom his victim and others who trusted him. His offending behaviours were both manipulative and controlling in nature. 

“The victim has shown a tremendous amount of courage to report this abuse, not only to seek justice to what had happened to them in the past, but also to safeguard others in the future.”

“We do not underestimate the significant challenges faced by the victim from the time the offending occurred, to reporting this matter to the police and throughout the investigation.”

Piotr Glas’s defence

Glas’s defence was that the offences simply hadn’t happened, although he admitted having an “issue with feet” which led him to steal a bag of children’s socks from a school in Southampton and bring it to Jersey with him when he moved.

The bag of socks became an important part of the trial, despite not forming part of the charges.

According to the prosecution, it marked one of few events when the child confronted the priest about events they were uncomfortable with.

The victim said they could tell the bag had something “untoward” about it.

“I didn’t have the framework to know why I felt it was disgusting, but it was in my gut that there was something very wrong about what I had discovered,” they said.

“I still blame myself”

The court also heard about the impact that the abuse had had on the child and their parents.

The victim’s mother had described how she blamed herself for the abuse, telling jurors: “The last thing that anybody wants to register was that there was a possibility that their child had been abused.”

She added: “I was so gullible. I was so, so gullible.

“How did I let that happen? I’m so ashamed.

“I drove [my child] there and I made [them] go when [they] didn’t want to.”

 “I still blame myself.”

Crown Advocate Carla Carvalho told jurors that the victim’s detailed accounts pointed towards the allegations being true.

She argued that the victim would have had no reason to put their family through the pain of hearing about the abuse, had the allegations not been true.

A “crisis of conscience”

The victim’s experience only came to light years after the offending, when they had a “crisis of conscience” that led them to do something about the abuse.

“I needed to start taking some steps towards making sure that the defendant was no longer a threat to minors,” they said.

The jury was shown messages and calls between the victim and Glas in which the victim confronted the priest and the priest apologised.

The victim explained in their evidence why they made the calls.

“I knew that this man would never admit to what he did, he would either deny it, lie about it or twist the truth,” they said.

According to the defence, these calls were made under pressure and without Glas having an understanding of what he was being accused of.

The court also heard a number of positive character references for Glas.

On the call, Glas tried to dissuade the victim from reporting the abuse, saying he wanted to bury his father and he wanted to be buried as a priest.

Cross-examining Glas, Advocate Carvalho asked him if he was a sinner.

He replied that everyone was a sinner.

“I am a sinner, but it’s not in relation to sexual abuse of [the complainant] or any other child I know, not in my life as a priest,” he said.

“The message is an admission, a confession”

Advocate Carvalho repeated Glas’s words in her closing speech: “I am devastated with myself, how I hurt you. I beg you for your mercy and forgiveness.

“I do apologise for all the damage I have done. There are no words of explanation I could use to apologise you and no chance in human way to fix it… My life is in your hands. I am so so sorry.”

Advocate Carvalho said: “There is, members of the jury, no stronger evidence of guilt than an individual’s own admission of it.

“Make no mistake… the message is an admission, a confession.”

This, she said, was evidence in the priest’s own words that he had abused the child.

The Deputy Bailiff, Robert MacRae, presided.